505 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH (COURT– I) CHENNAI ATTENDANCE CUM ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING HELD ON 06.01.2026 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESENT: HON’BLE SHRI. SANJIV JAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI. VENKATARAMAN SUBRAMANIAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLICATION NUMBER : Comp.Appeal/11/2025 PETITION NUMBER :

NAME OF THE PETITIONER(S) : Raj Pharma Pvt Ltd NAME OF THE RESPONDENTS : ROC, Chennai UNDER SECTION : Sec 252(3) of CA, 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER Present: None for the Appellant.

Vide separate order pronounced in Open Court, appeal is allowed. The Company Raj Pharma Pvt Ltd is restored.

[

Sd/- Sd/-

(VENKATARAMAN SUBRAMANIAM) (SANJIV JAIN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MG Date: 06.01.2026 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH – I, CHENNAI Comp. Appeal (CA)/11(CHE)/2025 (Under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 r/w Rules 11 & 87A of the NCLT Rules, 2016)

In the matter of Raj Pharma Private Limited Raj Pharma Private Limited, Represented by Mr. M.S. Vikram, No.7, Commanding Officers, Second Lane, West Masi Street, Madurai – 625 001.

… Appellant V The Registrar of Companies, Block No. 6, B Wing 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhawan

26, Haddows Road, Chennai-600 034.

… Respondents Order Pronounced on 06^th January, 2026 CORAM SHRI.SANJIV JAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SHRI.VENKATARAMAN SUBRAMANIAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Abhinav Parthasarathy, Advocate For RoC : Mr. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Advocate

O R D E R

(Heard through Hybrid mode)

1. This Appeal has been preferred by Mr. M.S. Vikram in the capacity of the Director in the Company namely Raj Pharma Private Limited (hereinafter, the Company) under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 being aggrieved against the order of strike off carried out by the Respondent namely, the Registrar of Companies, Chennai under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking to restore the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Respondent.

2. The brief facts of the matter are tabulated below: -

3. It is stated that the main objects of the Company as per the Memorandum of Association are as follows:

“a. To manufacture, buy, sell, market, import, export or otherwise deal in intravenous nutrient fluids, electrolytes, mineral and plasma substitutes for human or animal use, eye and ear drops and all other parenteral preparations, enzymes, hormones, steroids, proteins, serums, vaccines and their formulations, etc.,”

The detailed objects of the Company are set out in the Memorandum of Association which is placed at Page 2 – 31 of the Appeal.

4. It is stated that Authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) divided into 15,000 (Fifteen Thousand) Equity shares of Rs.100/- each. The Issued, Subscribed and Paid- up share capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) divided into 1,000 (One Thousand) equity shares of Rs.100/- each. The company has filed the Financial Statements upto Financial Year ending

31.03.2013.

5. It is stated that, the Appellant was incorporated in the year 1992 under the Companies Act, 1956. Subsequently, the Directors purchased the shares of the Company in the year 2008 and conducted business pertaining to pharma products. It is stated that the Appellant was filing returns until the year 2013, however, after the year 2013, the person handling the affairs of the Company quit from the Company and the company faced a steep fall in demand for pharma products.

6. It is stated that the Directors of the Company faced difficulties in running the business that resulted in the statutory lapses of the Company. It is stated that the non-filing of returns was neither deli