SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 6238

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MOUKTIKA STYLE AND DESIGN PRIVATELIMITED – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES – Respondent
RCP(CA) - 1/2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:VEENU MARWAHA

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

(Restored Company Petition)

(Application under sub-section (3) of section 252 read with Rule 11 of

National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mouktika Style and Design Private Limited

Through its Director, Ms. Padma Swarupa Bhagavatula

R/O at #Flat no.-1804, Tower 3, Uniworld Garden Sohna Road,

Sector-47, Gurgaon, Haryana-

CIN: U18209HR2020PTC090406

…….Petitioner

VERSUS

Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana

4th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi

….Respondent No.1

Income Tax Department, Delhi

Through the Nodal Officer Principal Chief Commissioner

of Income Tax, 4th Floor, E-2 Block, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic

Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

….Respondent No.2

Order delivered on: 07.11.2025

CORAM : KHETRABASI BISWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

: KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Present: -

For the Petitioner : Mr. Karanveer Jindal, Advocate

For the Income Tax Dept : Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel

ORDER

1. The present Company Petition is filed by Mouktika Style and Design Private Limited through director Ms. Padma Swarupa Bhagavatula (hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioner”) under sub-section (3) of section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) to restore the name of the Company i.e. Mouktika Style and Design Private Limited (hereinafter referred as “Company”) in the Register of Companies, maintained by Registrar of Companies.

2. Vide order dated 01.03.2024, Company Petition No. 55 of 2023, which had been originally filed seeking restoration of the name of the company under Section 252(3) of the Act was dismissed for want of prosecution. Subsequently, an application was moved for restoration of the said Company Petition No. 55 of 2023. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the original counsel, who had been representing the matter, had shifted abroad, which resulted in the non-prosecution of the petition. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant and in the interest of justice, vide order dated 03.07.2025 in RST.A (Companies Act) No.1/CH/2024, was allowed, thereby restoring Company Petition No. 55 of

2023 to its original number.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the present Petition is as follows;

(i) The Company was incorporated on 26.10.2020, with the RoC vide CIN U18209HR2020PTC090406 with its registered office in Gurgaon, Haryana. The Authorized Share Capital of the Company is Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- (Ten) each. The Issued share Capital as on date is Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- (Ten) each. A copy of master data is annexed as Annexure P-1. A copy of the striking off notice dated 13.12.2022 is marked as Annexure P-4 to the Petition.

(ii) The Company deals in the business of Styling of Readymade Garments and High Fashion Apparels of Western Brands and Design Consulting services. The main objects of the Company are set out in clause III (A) of Memorandum of Association of the Company and the true copy of the memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company is marked as Annexure P-6 to the Petition. The company was managed by two directors and had two shareholders as on 03.02.2023.

(iii) The petition aims to restore the company's name to the register of companies after it was struck off by the Registrar of Companies due to non-filing of statutory documents, including Form INC-20A, which was required to be filed within 180 days of incorporation. The directors only became aware of this issue when attempting to file annual returns and financial statements online, only to find that the company’s status was listed as "struck off" without prior notice or opportunity for hearing. The company had been operational and conducting business continuously since its incorporation.

(iv) The failure to file

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top