Vipra Containers Pvt Ltd vs Registrar Of Companies Nct Of Delhi & ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Vipra Containers Pvt. Ltd. (Through its Authorized Representative) CIN: U25200DL2010PTC200006 ....Appellant Registered Office at A-96 Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura Delhi North Delhi DL 110034 IN. Email: mksroc@yahoo.com

Vs.

Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana 4th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi -110019 ....Respondent Email: roc.delhi@mca.gov.in Ph: 011-26235703, 26235708

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Prabhakar Kumar and Mr. Sanjeev Kataria, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. P.S Singh, Advocate

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

19.03.2021 : Heard. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant

Company against Impugned Order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the

National Company Law Tribunal, Court No. IV, New Delhi in Appeal No.

386/252/ND/2019. The Ld. NCLT dismissed the Appeal seeking revival of

the name of company to the Register of Companies.

2. The Appellant claims and it is argued that the company was

incorporated on 12.03.2010. The certificate of incorporation is at Page 56.

The name was struck-off by the Respondent vide its Notice no. ROC-

DEL/248(5)/STK-7/2879 dated 30.06.2017 (Page 59). It is accepted that

Company Appeal (AT) No. 38 of 2020 1 the Company failed to file financial statements since incorporation i.e. from

2010 till it was struck off. It is claimed that this was due to lack of proper

professional guidance, oversight and inadvertent reasons.

3. The Appellant claims that to acquire land, the company had entered

into Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2010 with Mr. Sajjan Kumar and it paid

Rs. 3,415,000/- for the land which was allotted to Mr. Sajjan Kumar by the

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation. The

document at Page 98 "Agreement to Sell" shows recital of Mr. Sajjan Kumar

claiming to be absolute owner of the land as per allotment letter dated

31.07.2007. The Allotment Letter (Page 92) is allotted by Haryana State

Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation with conditions.

The Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was paying rent

to HSIIDC through Mr. Sajjan Kumar, who is one of the Director of the

Company. It is stated that due to technical difficulty and lack of proper

professional guidance company could not actually come up and start

functioning in spite of various efforts made. It is stated that the land could

not come on the name of the company and this was one of the difficulty.

4. The Ld. NCLT in the impugned order has recorded as under:

"This is an appeal filed under Section 252 of the Companies Act

for revival of the company. Learned Company Secretary argued in

favour of revival of the company but during the argument he was

not able to show any document or any proof of company being in

operation or company holding any assets movable and immovable

or any other factor to consider it to be just to revive the company.

The documents placed do not reflect any details of company being

Company Appeal (AT) No. 38 of 2020 2 in either operation or having any reason able ground to consider

the revival. The letter of allotment issued by the Haryana State

Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation is in favour

of one of the promoters of the company which was issued in 2007.

The learned Company Secretary further states that the said

promoter had entered into an agreement with the company for

transferring the said land in the name of the company which is

also dated 08.10.2010 but there are no consequential steps taken

neither any documents are placed on record to substantiate the

execution of the said documents. Learned AROC states that the

company has not filed the financial statements since incorporation

i.e. from 2010. Hence, in our view there is nothing on record to

bring the company under the reasons mentioned in Section 252

which the company is required to prove by seeking revival. In view

of the same, application is dismissed."

5. After gone through the above impugned order we find it difficult to

take exception to this order. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant states

that the Directors prepared financial statement but they were never filed.

The fact remains that allotment of land was in the name of one Mr. Sajjan

Kumar. He appears to be one of the Directors of the company. Nothing has

happened since 2010 and it appears time taken by Mr. Sajjan Kumar to set

up Industrial Unit is kept waiting where some Industrial Unit could have

come up. We find that there is no equity in favour of the Appellant nor any

legal ground on the basis of which the fault could be found with the

Respondent striking off name of such company.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 38 of 2020 3

6. There is no substance in the Appeal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)

sa/nn

Company Appeal (AT) No. 38 of 2020 4