2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 8148
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Shri. Babasaheb Kisan Nikrad Member of M/s. Ban-Bro Steel Castings Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar of Companies Pune Maharashtra – Respondent
Appeal - 38/2025
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
COURT-V, MUMBAI BENCH
3. APPEAL/38(MB)2025
IN THE MATTER OF
Shri. Babasaheb Kisan Nikrad Member of M/s. Ban-Bro Steel Castings Pvt Ltd
VS
The Registrar of Companies Pune Maharashtra
U/s 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013
Order Delivered on 16.12.2025
CORAM:
SH. MOHAN PRASAD TIWARI SH. CHARANJEET SINGH GULATI
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (T)
Appearance through VC/Physical/Hybrid Mode:
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent:
________________________________________________________________
ORDER IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, COURT – V Company Appeal No. 38/MB/ 2025 Under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 In the matter of Shri. Babasaheb Kisan Nikrad, Member of M/s. Ban-
APPEAL/38(MB)2025: The above Appeal is listed for pronouncement of the
order. The same is pronounced in open court, vide a separate order.
Sd/- Sd/-
CHARANJEET SINGH GULATI MOHAN PRASAD TIWARI
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
//Rahul//
Bro Steel Castings Private Limited R/at Post Nagapur, Dist. Ahilyanagar Maharashtra
414111.
Email:- ambikatransport1972@gmail.com …Appellant Versus The Registrar of Companies, Pune Maharashtra PCNTDA Green Building, Block A, 1st & 2nd Floor, Near Akurdi Railway Station, Akurdi, Pune, Maharashtra – 411 044 Email- roc.pune@mca.gov.in …Respondent Order pronounced on: 16.12.2025 Coram:
Hon’ble Sh. Mohan Prasad Tiwari, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Sh. Charanjeet Singh Gulati, Member (Technical)
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Adv. Avinash R. Khanolkar (PH)
For the ROC: Mr. Parvez Naikwadi (VC)
ORDER
1. The present Company Appeal has been filed under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 by Shri Babasaheb Kisan Nikrad, Member of M/s. Ban-Bro Steel Casting Private Limited (Appellant), seeking restoration of the Company’s name in the Register of Companies maintained by ROC, Mumbai.
Brief Facts
2. M/s. Ban-Bro Steel Casting Private Limited was incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 on 07.06.1985 having CIN: U00363PN1985PTC036532; having registered office at C - 17, MIDC Industrial Area, Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra – 414 111.
3. The Appellant is a member of the Company, holding 3,250 equity shares of ₹100 each, representing 16.25% of its issued, subscribed and paid-up share capital.
4. The main objective of the Appellant Company as per their MOA is to set up Steel Furnaces and continuous casting forgings and rolling mill plants for producing steel, stainless Steel.
5. Accordingly, to commence its business operations, the Company acquired on a 95-year long lease, with effect from 27 June 1985, a land parcel measuring 90,395 sq. ft. at Plot No. C-17, C-Block, opposite ISMT, Nagapur, MIDC, Ahilyanagar–414111 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land’).
6. It is submitted that, the Company was unable to generate adequate revenue from its operations on the said land. Consequently, by a Board Resolution dated 15.04.2011, the board of directors resolved to strike off the Company’s name from the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent.
7. Accordingly, under the Easy Exit Scheme, 2011 (EES) introduced by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Company submitted the required form to the Respondent on 30.04.2011. Thereafter, on 30.07.2011, the Respondent passed the impugned order striking off the Company’s name from its register, and the company remained out of business operations since then.
8. It is submitted further that the Company had acquired lease hold rights over the Land in the year 1985 and are valid till 2075 and is valued at ₹ 2,25,98,750/- based on valuation report dated 20.01.2025 which has not been terminated either by the Company or by MIDC. Accordingly, the Company continues to hold these leasehold rights to date.
9. In the interregnum period, M/s. Meet Control Panel Private Limited (CIN:
U28113PN2007PTC130136) (the ‘Proposed Acquirer’), which owns the adjoining property, approached the Appellant seeking transfer of the Company’s leasehold rights over the Land.
10. The Appellant, as a member, considered t