ROYAL CATERERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal/ Petition which has been preferred u/s 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Petitioner Company in relation to an order of striking off the name of the Petitioner Company passed by the Respondent with effect from 07.06.2017 under the provisions of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. Ld Counsel for the Petitioner represents that the Petitioner Company was incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at P-204, First Floor, Palam Apartment, Brijwasan, Delhi - 110062. The Company is engaged in the business of food catering work and has been carrying on the said business even as of today. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner represents that the Company has been filing its income tax returns with the Income Tax Authorities. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that it has also filed necessary returns with Employees Provident Fund Organization and as a proof of filing returns and making payment towards employees' welfare, evidences have been enclosed as Annexure filed along with this Appeal. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the petitioner company had tried getting annual filing done in March 2016 itself but the same could not be done due to non-acceptance of digital signature on MCA Portal and the complaint for the same was filed on MCA vide complaint no. SR63073. A copy of the complaint it is stated has been also placed on record. It is further pointed out by the Ld. Counsel that presently the Petitioner Company is having 50 number of employees on its payroll who are completely dependent on the company for their survival. However, despite all these compliances with the various regulatory authorities, compliance in relation to the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 with the Respondent RoC by filing annual returns and financial statements has been omitted to be complied with and that the said omission is not mala fide and according to Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has occasioned due to the continuous changes in the staff of the accounts department and the Board of Directors of the Petitioner Company inadvertently failed to verify whether compliance has been done or not. However, in view of non-filing of the Annual returns and Balance Sheets, the name of the Petitioner Company from the register as maintained by the RoC has been struck off on and from 07.06.2017 and in view of demonstration of continued operation of the Company over the past several years and presently too it will seriously prejudice the interest of the Company and the Petitioner and that taking into consideration the compliances made by the Petitioner in relation to other statutory authorities and since no one will be prejudiced if the Appeal is allowed, but on the other hand, the interest of all concerned including shareholders/creditors, employees of the Company will be seriously affected if the appeal is not allowed and the name of the company in the register of the RoC is not restored.

(2.) Upon notice to the Respondent RoC, RoC has filed its reply to the above said Appeal. In paragraph 3 and 4 of the reply, the following has been submitted:

(3.) Pursuant to the above provisions and rules, it is represented by the Ld. Company Prosecutor for RoC that the procedure in relation to striking off was adopted in relation to Companies numbering 22864 out of 27291 Companies in which list the Petitioner Company also figures and hence was struck off. It is also evidenced from the report/observations as filed by the Respondent as represented by the Ld. Company Prosecutor that Appellant had not filed its annual returns and Balance Sheets since financial year ended on 31.03.2013 due to which the Respondent had reasonable cause to believe that the petitioner company was inactive. It is also pointed out on behalf of the Respondent that due process of law prior to striking off was strictly complied with and in view of the Respondent not having received any communication from the Petitioner Company in response to the notice issued under sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (4) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 7 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016, the Respondent was forced to follow the procedure for striking off and in the circumstances the decision for restoration is being left to this Tribunal for its consideration.