In the matter of Shri Balaji Cycles Private Limited (1^st Appellant) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma (2^nd Appellant) Versus The Registrar of Companies (Respondent)

• Applicant Company was incorporated on 30.04.1997
• The Company failed to file statutory documents viz. Annual Return and Balance Sheet as per section159/220 of the Companies Act,1956.
• The Company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as ROC) vide official Gazette Notification dated 23.06.2007.
• The applicant filed the application with National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as NCLT) for restoration of company after almost a decade.
• ROC objected the restoration on the following grounds:
• Company to provide strict proof showing that the company is carrying on business since inception by providing proof such as submitting of income tax returns, viability of running the company, composition of Board of Directors, shareholders, creditors and their consents thereof for the present application for restoration.
• The applicant replied that the company did not receive any show cause notice from ROC for strike off and property adjacent to the appellant has somehow colluded with the postman to prevent any correspondence from reaching the applicant and applicant only came to know about the name of the appellant being struck off only in 2017 and various other reasons such as illness of the directors, paucity of funds etc.
• Despite providing opportunity, the company failed to provide Income Tax Returns and placed on record the true copy of the audited Balance Sheet and Profit & loss Account only for the financial year ending on 31.03.2016.
• Drawing adverse inference – NCLT dismissed the application.
• Aggrieved by the order of NCLT, Applicants filed the application for restoration of company with the Appellant Tribunal.
• During the pendency of application, the company paid the lease rentals to HSID and the same was provided as an additional proof for restoration.
• Appellate Tribunal quashing the applicant reply stated that though the consent of shareholders and creditors is received, the same cannot be considered for this case as they are family members. Further the lease rentals have been deposited only after when the NCLT asked for proof and hence the same cannot be taken a good ground to assert that the company has already been in business or in operation.
• NCLAT also dismissed the application as the appeal has no merits.