MCA

Clarification on CODS 2018 where petitions have already been filed before NCLT u/s 252 and orders are pending.

Clarification-Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018 where petitions have already been filed before NCLT u/s 252 and orders are pending. 

General Circular No. 05/2018

F.No. 02/04/2017-CL-V
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS

5th Floor, ‘A’ Wing Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. R.P. Road, New Delhi
Dated:17.05.2018

To,
All Regional Directors/ All Registrars of Companies,
All Stakeholders.

Subject: Clarification-Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018-reg.

Sir,

In continuation of General Circular No. 16/2017 dated 29.12.2017, General Circular No. 02/2018 dated 28.03.2018 and General Circular No . 03/2018 dated 27.04.2018 on the subject cited above, it is stated that this Ministry has received representations from stakeholders raising doubts regarding filing requirements of e-CODS, 2018, in such cases, where petitions have already been filed before NCLT under section 252 of the Companies Act 2013, during the currency of the scheme and orders are pending before the NCLT and whether such struck off companies can file CODS  upon obtaining orders for the same even after 01.05.2018 .

2. The matter has been examined and it is clarified that as per para 4(v) of the General Circular 16/2017 dt 29.12.2017, which states “In the event of defaulting companies whose names have been removed from the register of companies under section 248 of the Act and which have filed applications for revival under section 252 of the Act up to the date of this scheme, the Director’s DIN shall be re-activated only NCLT order of revival subject to the company having filing of all overdue documents“. It, is therefore, hereby directed that in such cases the Registrar (s) of Companies shall raise a ticket through Change Requirement Form (CRF) on MCA21 portal along with copy of NCLT order and E-governance shall activate DIN of the directors7such struck off companies that have been revived through NCLT to file e-CODS, 2018. However , the directors whose DINs are proposed to be activated through CRF should not be directors on any other company which has been stuck off under section 248(1) of the Act (other than the one rev ived through NCLT order as mentioned in CRF). This may be ensured by the ROC before raising CRF with E-governance.

3. Further, the Registrar(s) of Companies are directed to ensure that CRFs are raised in such cases only after thorough scrutiny of the NCLT orders and ensuring that such struck off companies had filed overdue documents before filing e-CODS, 2018 and had filed petitions before the  NCLT during the validity of CODS Scheme.

4. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.

Yours faithfully,

(K.M.S. Narayanan)
Assistant Director (Policy)
23387263

Download Circular >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Plea that assessee was not aware of order cannot be brushed aside in absence of proof of service

Ground taken by assessee that he was not aware of the order cannot be brushed aside so lightly in absence…

19 minutes ago
  • Income Tax

Order rejecting stay of income tax demand should recite merits if it is a case for stay or not

In an order rejecting stay of income tax demand there should be a recital of the merits whether it is…

23 hours ago
  • Income Tax

CBDT extends due date of tax audit for FY 2025-26 to 21st October 2026

CBDT has extended the due date for furnishing Return of Income for Assessment Year 2026-27 (FY 2025-26) in respect of…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Denying accumulation of u/s 11(2) merely on grounds of delay in filing Form No. 10 is unsustainable

Denying the accumulation of u/s 11(2) merely on grounds of a procedural delay in filing Form No. 10 is unsustainable…

1 week ago
  • Empanelment

Engagement of 05 Young Professionals CAs at Central Registrar of Cooperative Society

Engagement of 05 Young Professionals CAs in the Office of Central Registrar of Cooperative Society on contractual basis The office…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

AO can’t take two different stands on immunity u/s 270AA(2) for a same transaction

Immunity u/s 270AA(2) in respect of a single transaction can not be denied to one assessee when the penalty was…

1 week ago