NCLAT held that:
(i) Though date of striking off was not mentioned, the appeal was preferred after four years. The order on this issue appears to be completely vague. Moreover, if the NCLT was exercising its jurisdiction under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, in such situation the appellant was required to satisfy the NCLT that on the date of striking off the company, the company was carrying on business or in operation. There was third condition for passing of the restoration order in case it was otherwise just for restoring the name of the company.
(ii) The order does not meet either of the three criteria under Section 252(3) of the Act. Moreover, since the appeal was preferred under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 the NCLT was required to examine the appeal strictly in accordance with the provision under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. In absence of exact date of striking off it would be difficult to approve the impugned order.
(iii) Moreover, NCLT has imposed cost of Rs. 5 lakhs but no plausible reason has been given for imposing such cost.
(iv) Set aside the order and remit back the matter to the NCLT for passing order afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties.