NCLAT Modifies Cost Imposition in Company Restoration Appeal — Balances Dereliction with Justified Penalty. The tribunal's arbitrary cost imposition was corrected to ensure compliance with statutory provisions under the Companies Act, 2013.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose when VIP Farms Pvt. Ltd. had its name struck off from the Register of Companies due to non-filing of statutory returns, which the company attributed to lack of professional assistance and inadvertent oversight. After learning about the striking off, the company filed an application under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of its name. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) restored the name but imposed a penalty of ₹ 7,00,000, calculated at ₹ 25,000 for each year of default since the company's incorporation in 1997. The appellant contested the imposition of this cost, arguing that the tribunal failed to provide a rationale for the amount and that the discretion exercised was arbitrary. The court examined the provisions of Section 252(3) and Rule 87A of the NCLT (Amendment) Rules, 2017, noting that while the tribunal had discretion in imposing costs, it must be exercised with logical reasoning. The court found that the tribunal did not justify the basis for the ₹ 25,000 per year cost, leading to an arbitrary determination. Consequently, the court modified the cost to ₹ 4,00,000, asserting that penalties must be justified by reason and logic, ensuring a balance between dereliction and the extent of costs imposed.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Restoration of Company Name - Justification for Cost Imposition - Companies Act, 2013, Section 252(3) - The tribunal restored the company's name but imposed a cost without providing rationale for the amount, leading to an arbitrary exercise of discretion. The court modified the cost to ₹ 4,00,000, emphasizing the need for reasoned decision-making in cost imposition (Paras 6-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the imposition of costs by the tribunal was justified and in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and NCLT Rules.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court modified the imposition of costs from ₹ 7,00,000 to ₹ 4,00,000, emphasizing the need for a reasoned approach in determining penalties.

Law Points

  • Restoration of company name
  • Discretionary power of tribunal
  • Imposition of costs
  • Statutory compliance
  • Reasoned decision-making
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 72

Company Appeal (AT) No. 33 of 2026

2026-08-19

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka, Indevar Pandey

Mr. Himanshu Harbola

VIP Farms Pvt. Ltd.

Registrar of Companies NCT of Delhi and Haryana

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the imposition of costs for restoration of company name.

Remedy Sought

Restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies without excessive costs.

Filing Reason

Striking off the company's name due to non-filing of statutory returns.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT restored the company's name but imposed a penalty of ₹ 7,00,000.

Issues

Justification for cost imposition Discretionary power of the tribunal

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the tribunal's cost imposition lacked rationale. The respondent's position was not detailed in the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal must provide a rationale for cost imposition to avoid arbitrary decisions, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.

Judgment Excerpts

The striking of the name of the Appellant from the Register of Registrar of Companies was due to non-filing of the statutory returns. The relevant observations made in the Order do not disclose the reason or reflect applicability of mind. The imposition of cost... has had to be followed with a rational approach.

Procedural History

The name of the appellant company was struck off in 2007, an application for restoration was filed, the NCLT restored the name with a penalty, and the appeal against the penalty was made to the NCLAT.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 2013: Section 252(3), Section 248(1)
  • NCLT (Amendment) Rules, 2017: Rule 87A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Religious Property Dispute — Upholds Partial Striking of Written Statement. The Court found that the High Court erred in striking out a relevant denial of property claims while justifying the removal of irrelevant al...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Workmen's Petition Challenging Industrial Tribunal Award Rejecting Wage Enhancement Claim. Court upholds Tribunal's finding that Memorandum of Settlement dated 29 April 2008 was not binding on employer as workmen failed to...