V Sundar v. Registrar of Companies: Striking off a company’s name for non-compliance is unjustifi ed if material evidence establishes its active operational status.

6. V Sundar vs. Registrar of Companies, Chennai

185 taxmann.com 222, NCLAT, Chennai

Where company’s name was struck off by Registrar of Companies (RoC) for non-compliance, but NCLT misinterpreted material on record regarding its operational status at the time of strike-off, such striking off could not be justified and matter was to be remitted for reconsideration of restoration application.

FACTS

• The appellant, a shareholder of a Private Limited company, sought restoration of the company’s name under section 252 after it was struck off by RoC. It was stated that notice for strike-off was issued in 2011 and the company’s name was removed in 2012. The company had availed bank credit of about ₹45 lakhs against hypothecation. However, it later defaulted, and since it owned immovable assets; a settlement proposal was offered by the financial creditor to be met through sale of such assets. The appellant contended that restoration would enable discharge of liabilities in the interest of creditors and stakeholders.
• The Registrar submitted that the company had failed to comply with statutory requirements under sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, that no statutory record
  Read More