SANDHYA MALHOTRA
Quick Summary
NCLAT: Restoration of the name of the company basis Continued operations and Commitment of completion of all outstanding Compliance Urvashi Infrastructure Limited vs Registrar/ ROC Delhi under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 Decision by: Honble Justice M. Venugopal (Member (Judicial)) a
Daily Limit Reached
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Articles
Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
- No Ads
- WhatsApp Broadcasts
- Daily E-Newsletter
- Unlimited Articles Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits
Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.
FAQ :
The main issue was the restoration of the company's name, which had been struck off by the Registrar of Companies. The company appealed to the NCLAT after its initial request to the NCLT was rejected.
The company argued that it remained operational, had initiated legal proceedings to recover significant debts, and that non-filing of statutory documents was due to personal tragedies and consultant oversight. They also submitted income tax returns showing ongoing financial activity.
The NCLT rejected the request because the company failed to provide evidence of being in operation or conducting significant business at the time its name was struck off.
The NCLAT ordered the company to file all outstanding statutory documents, pay any late fees or charges, and pay a cost of Rs. 60,000 to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within two weeks.
The NCLAT allowed the appeal, set aside the NCLT's order and the notice of striking off, and ordered the restoration of the company's name to the Register of Companies, provided the conditions were met.
CAclubindia
