NCLAT Restores Struck-Off Real Estate Firm, Protecting Rs. 6 Crore Goa Land in Public Interest
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has restored the name of M/s Elegance Property Developers Pvt Ltd to the Register of Companies, overturning a 2024 NCLT order. The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) observed that the company, which owns prime real estate in South Goa, was wrongly denied revival by the NCLT on limitation grounds.
Real EstateNclatNcltCompany LawPublic InterestReal EstateAug 29, 2025
Elegance Property Developers Pvt Ltd was incorporated in August 2008, with Tahir Vasanali Isani and Malik Mansoorali Isani as directors. The company filed statutory returns till FY 2010-11 but failed to submit filings thereafter. In September 2018, the Registrar of Companies (RoC), Goa, struck off the company’s name for non-compliance under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act. In 2023, shareholder Tahir Vasanali Isani sought restoration under Section 252(3) of the Act.
The NCLT, Mumbai, rejected the plea in October 2024, ruling that the limitation period was three years, not twenty. It also observed that the company had reported nil revenues and had not carried on any business activity for years. Delivering judgment on August 11, 2025, a Bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial) and Indevar Pandey (Technical) disagreed with the NCLT’s reasoning.
On Limitation: The tribunal held that since the application was filed by a shareholder (a member), the extended 20-year limitation under Section 252(3) applied, not the three-year cap under Section 252(1). The NCLT’s interpretation was found to be “not correct.”
On Business Activity: While the company had shown nil revenues for several years, the NCLAT noted that it owned a 36,022 sq. mtrs land parcel in South Goa, purchased for ₹6.05 crore in 2008. Holding such a valuable asset meant the company could not be treated as a mere shell entity. Denying restoration, the tribunal said, would render the asset deadlocked and wasted, contrary to public policy.
On Just and Equitable Grounds: Citing precedents such as DD Finance and Holdings Pvt Ltd v. RoC and Durga Builders Pvt Ltd v. RoC, the NCLAT reaffirmed that companies holding substantial assets deserve restoration if not involved in fraud or fund siphoning. The appellate tribunal directed the RoC to restore the company’s name subject to compliance payment of ₹2 lakh as costs to the RoC within eight weeks and filing of all pending annual returns and balance sheets within four weeks, along with applicable fees.
The NCLAT clarified that despite restoration, the RoC remained free to initiate punitive action for past non-filing or late filing of statutory documents. This decision underscores the importance of balancing regulatory compliance with the protection of valuable assets and public interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the significance of the NCLAT's decision in this case?
The NCLAT's decision is significant because it restores a company that owns valuable real estate in South Goa, ensuring that the asset is not deadlocked and wasted, which aligns with public policy and economic interests.
Why was the company initially struck off the Register of Companies?
The company was initially struck off the Register of Companies for non-compliance with statutory filing requirements under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act.
What was the NCLT's reasoning for rejecting the company's restoration plea?
The NCLT rejected the company's restoration plea, ruling that the limitation period was three years, not twenty, and that the company had not carried on any business activity for years.
How did the NCLAT interpret the limitation period for the company's restoration application?
The NCLAT interpreted the limitation period as 20 years, applicable to applications filed by shareholders (members), rather than the three-year cap under Section 252(1).
What are the conditions for the company's restoration as per the NCLAT's order?
The NCLAT directed the RoC to restore the company’s name subject to compliance payment of ₹2 lakh as costs to the RoC within eight weeks and filing of all pending annual returns and balance sheets within four weeks, along with applicable fees.
Related News Articles
Boosting India's Housing Market: Developers Seek Tax Incentives and Industry Status in Budget 2024
The Indian housing sector is looking forward to the Union Budget 2024, expecting tax reliefs and other sentiment boosters to stimulate growth in the market.
Kalpataru Ltd Set to Enter Nagpur Real Estate Market with Plotted Development Project
Mumbai-based Kalpataru Ltd plans to launch a plotted development project in Nagpur, marking its entry into the city's real estate market. The project will be spread across 37 acres and will have 400 plots of sizes 1,200 to 4,000 sq ft range.
Hong Kong Halts Commercial Land Sales for Seventh Consecutive Quarter
Hong Kong's government has announced that it will not sell any commercial land in the quarter from October to December, citing low demand and high office vacancy rates.
Homebuyers Forum Claims RERA Act Falls Short of Objectives, Urges Consumer Affairs Ministry for Action
A forum representing homebuyers in Maharashtra claims that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, has failed to meet its objectives. The forum is now urging the Union Consumer Affairs Ministry to issue specific guidelines to protect consu
Ahmedabad Shines with Top Rental Yields in India
Ahmedabad leads the pack with the highest rental yields in India, clocking in at 3.9%, according to a recent report by Magicbricks. Other cities like Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Pune are also seeing significant increases in rental returns.
Incuspaze Expands with Major Leasing Deal in Gurugram's Thriving Real Estate Market
Incuspaze, a prominent player in the commercial real estate sector, has announced a significant leasing deal in Gurugram, marking a major expansion in one of India’s most booming real estate markets. This move underscores the growing demand for quality of