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

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 7892

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
M/s S S Swami Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
ROC Delhi – Respondent
Appeal - 138/2021



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:S N PANDEY

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,

NEW DELHI COURT III

Item No. 301

Appeal 138/252/ND/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. S.S Swami Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

…..APPLICANT/PETITIONER

Vs

RoC Delhi ……RESPONDENT

SECTION

U/s 252 Order delivered on 03.12.2025

CORAM:

SHRI BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS,

HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DR SANJEEV RANJAN,

HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

PRESENT:

For the Applicant : Dr. Sonia, Director in person.

For the Respondent :

HYBRID HEARING (PHYSICAL & VC)

ORDER

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Ex-Directors on

behalf of the Appellant Company under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of name of the struck off company in the Register of Companies, maintained in the office of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. It is stated that the Appellant Company ‘S.S Swami Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.’ was incorporated on 01.11.2012 vide CIN: U70100DL2012PTC244321, as a Private Company limited by Shares with the Registrar of

Companies, Delhi having their registered office at 511, Supriya Apartment, Plot No. 20, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075; and the name of the Appellant Company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana vide Public Notice No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-

7/4865 dated 08.08.2018.

2. The Registrar of Companies, Delhi, struck off the Appellant Company’s name of the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, to failure to file Financial Statements & Annual Return for the period 2015-16; 2016-17; 2017-18; 2018-19; 2019-20. Consequently, the Registrar of Companies initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, for the purpose of striking off the name of the company of the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies.

3. The brief facts of the case as mentioned by the Appellant are given below:

i) The authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.

1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) divided into 10,000 number of equity shares of Rs. 10/- and the issued, subscribed and paid-up capital of the company is Rs.

1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) divided into 10,000 number of equity shares of Rs. 10/- each.

ii) The Appellant Company’s main object is “To carry on business of colonizers, real estate agent, developers of land and farm houses, residential and commercial purposes. To construct and erect houses, buildings or work& of every description on any land of the Company or any other property.”

iii) At present the Company is managed by two directors as well as shareholders namely: Mr. Satish Kumar Swami (DIN-06403141) and Ms. Sonia (DIN-

06403111).

iv) The Registrar of Companies, Delhi, struck off the Appellant Company’s name of the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to failure to file Financial Statements & Annual Return for the period 2015-16; 2016-17; 2017-18; 2018-19; 2019-20. Consequently, the Registrar of Companies initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, for the purpose of striking off the name of the company of the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies.

v) The Appellant submitted that the Appellant Company did not receive any show-cause notice, neither it was afforded any opportunity of being heard before the aforesaid action was taken by the opposite party.

vi) It is submitted that the accounts of the Appellant company were prepared and audited and that the company had engaged the services of Company Secretary to perform the task of filing the returns with the office of the Registrar of Companies who did not file the same and also did not reveal this fact to the Directors of the Appellant Company.

vii)It is further submitted that it was only in year 2020 when the fact of non-filing of the returns and other documents with the opposite party as well as the fact that the Appellant Company’s name had been stuck off the register maintained by the opposite party, was known to the Appellant Company.

viii) The Appellant Company has been active since incorpo

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top