Naresh Salecha ORDER
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Member (J))
1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 21.09.2021 by which an appeal filed under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act') for quashing of the order of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (for short 'Registrar') dated 31.05.2007 by which name of the Company has been struck off from the register of the Companies and its restoration to its register has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of this case are that H.P. Apparel Private Limited (in short 'Company') was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on 23.12.1996 and was allotted Corporate Identity No. U17299DL1996PTC084010. Since the Company was neither in the business nor in operation for a long time, therefore, the Registrar struck off the name of the Company from its register vide its order dated 31.05.2007. The said order is reproduced as under:-
"In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956 and of the following Companies New Delhi - 110 019, the 31st May 2007
No. ROC/Delhi/560(5)/SM/260. - Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sub section (5) of Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 that the names of the under-mentioned companies from Serial Number 1 to 11426 have this day been struck off from the Register of the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana and are dissolved:-"
3. The Order dated 31.05.2007 was challenged by way of an appeal before the Tribunal after a long delay in which the Registrar filed the reply and made the following averments:-
8. On perusal of petition received, it was observed in the enclosed Financial Statements there was 'Zero' revenue from operations in financial year 2006-07 to 2010-11 and 2016-17 to 2018-19 which clearly fails to support the claim of the Company that it was carrying on any business for past few years, especially at the time of strike off.
9. That the company was struck off on 31.05.2007 and it has come before this Hon'ble Tribunal after more than 13 years for seeking restoration."
4. The only argument raised by the Appellant before this Tribunal is that though the Company had not generated any revenue from the financial year 2006-07 to 2018-19 but it has land which fact is sufficient for restoration of the name of the Company to the register of the Companies. He has relied upon the decisions in the case of M/s. Insulflex and Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, Pune & Ors., Company Appal (AT) No. 203 of 2019 decided on 12.12.2019, Khetan Granite Private Limited Vs. Office of Registrar of Companies, Jharkhand, Company Appeal (AT) No. 290 of 2019 decided on 20.01.2020 and Shri Madan Lal Food Products Private Limited Vs. Union of India, though Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) No. 414 of 2018 decided on 13.01.2020.
5. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Appellant has acquired the land by virtue of Transfer-cum-Sale Deed dated 27.06.2009, much after the date i.e. 31.05.2007 when the name of the Company was struck off from the register of the Companies and in view of Section 250 of the Act the Company could not have purchased the aforesaid land, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration. He has further relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Alliance Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Office of Registrar of Companies in WA, CA (AT) No. 20 of 2016 which is stated to have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alliance Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Office of Registrar of Companies in WB, CA No. 7258 of 2019 vide order dated 23.09.2019. He has further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Appellant are also not applicable because in all these cases it has been found that the Company is in operation and as such one ........