Supreme Court: Issues of Party Capacity and Maintainability Must Be Decided by Arbitral Tribunal  ||  Supreme Court: Omissions in Chief Examination Can Be Rectified During Cross-Examination  ||  Supreme Court: Items Given by Accused to Police Are Not Section 27 Recoveries under Evidence Act  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Institutions Must Pay Court Fees When Filing Disputes in State Tribunal  ||  Allahabad High Court: Law Treats All Equally, State Cannot Gain Undue Benefit from Delay Condonation  ||  SC: SARFAESI Act Was Not Applicable in Nagaland Before its 2021 Adoption, Dismisses Creditor’s Plea  ||  SC: Lis Pendens Applies To Money Suits on Mortgaged Property, Including Ex Parte Proceedings  ||  Kerala HC: Civil Courts Cannot Grant Injunctions in NCLT Matters and Such Orders Can Be Set Aside  ||  Bombay High Court: Technical Breaks to Temporary Employees Cannot Deny Maternity Leave Benefits  ||  NCLAT: Appellate Jurisdiction Limited to Orders Deciding Parties’ Rights, Not Procedural Directions    

Sanjay Goel and Ors. Vs. The Registrar of Company and Ors. - (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) (30 Oct 2023)

Registrar of Companies can restore the name of the Company in its Register, if it is just and equitable

MANU/NC/5273/2023

Company

The present appeal has been filed by Sanjay Goel and Sachin Goel, the Shareholders and directors of Chazer Footcare private limited ("Company") under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of name of the Chazer Footcare private limited, in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Company "RoC", Respondent No. 1.

The Appellants undertake that, the Appellant Company will be more cautious and vigilant with regard to the corporate matters and Compliance of the applicable Acts. The provisions pertaining to restoration of the name of the company have been provided in Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 wherein it is provided that, if it is just and equitable to restore the name of the company in the Registrar of Companies, it may direct the RoC to restore the name in its Register.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, present Tribunal is of the considered view that it is just and proper to restore the name of the company to the Registrar of Companies as maintained by the ROC.

Name of the Appellant company is restored subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000 to the Registrar of Companies. The restoration of the Appellant Company's name in the Register will be subject to their filing all outstanding documents for the defaulting years as required by law and completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns. Appeal disposed off.

Tags : NAME   RESTORATION   REGISTRATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved