Back
Page 1 of 4
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
C. APPEAL NO.11/ALD/2021
In the matter of
An application under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
And
In the matter of:
TRANSPAN INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED
Having Registered Office at:
Mavi Kalan, PO Saharanpur,
Kotwali, Dehat Saharanpur,
Uttar Pradesh (247001)
CIN : U45400UP2012PTC054193
.... Struck Off
And
Sh. Anuj Panwar
B201, Doon Trafalgar,
Dhoran Road, Dehradun
UttarPradesh.
Sh. Sesh Raj Singh Panwar
B201, Doon Trafalgar,
Dhoran Road, Dehradun
UttarPradesh.
… Appellants
Versus
THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
Kanpur, U.P.,
37/17, West Cott Building, The Mall,
Kanpur 208001
…… Respondent
Order reserved on: 01.12.2021
Order pronounced on:07.12.2021
Coram:
Sh. Rajasekhar V.K, Member (Judicial)
Sh. Virendra Kumar Gupta, Member (Technical)
Appearances (via Video Conference) :
For Appellant
: Sh. Harmeet Kumar, PCS &
Ms Monica Nanda, PCS.
For ROC
: Sh. Pradeep Singh Sisodia, CGSC.
Page 2 of 4
Order
Per:
Rajasekhar V.K., Member (Judicial)
1) This Company Petition has been filed by the appellants Mr. Anuj Panwar & Mr Sesh
Raj Singh Panwar under section 252(3) 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, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. It is stated that the company
Transpan Infra Private Limited was incorporated on 17.12.2012 and the name of
the Company was struck off on 25.10.2019 by the ROC.
2) It is contended that the Company had not filed the Financial Statement and Annual
Returns for the financial year 2016-17 onwards, due to economic recession and
inadvertent reasons and has produced copies of the said financial statements. It is
further contended that the Company has revenue from operation amounting to
₹31,29,694 /- and assets of ₹32,40,534 /- which is reflected from the audited balance
sheet for the year ending 31st March, 2020 and it will be unfair to the Creditors and the
Company if the company is struck-off and the Creditors do not receive their dues.
Upon the said contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner prayed for passing of an
order for restoration of the name of the appellant company .Upon the said contentions,
the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner prayed for passing of an order for restoration of the
name of the appellant company.
3) Notice was issued to the Registrar of Companies, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The Registrar
of Companies, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh has submitted a report. It was stated in the report
that only after compliance of the requirements to be met under Section 248 of the
Companies Act, 2013, Registrar of Companies, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh has struck off
the name of the company from the register.
4) ROC Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh has not objected to this application for restoration of the
name of the company.
5) Further stated that the company is not a shell company neither any illegal transaction
has taken place in the company.
6) On perusal of the application we are also satisfied that the name of the company should
be restored to the register. The appellant has submitted sufficient evidence that it has
been in operation during the period preceding strike off, therefore, it could not be
Page 3 of 4
termed as a defunct company as per Section 252 of the Act. Thus, taking into
consideration the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, which
vests this Tribunal with a discretion where the Company, whose name has been struck
off, and such Company is able to demonstrate that it is just and equitable to do so, can
restore the name of the Company, in the Register and in the interest of all stakeholders,
including the Appellant itself, who seeks restoration of the name of the Company in
the register maintained by Registrar of Companies, the company deserve t
