MCA's Strike-Off Wave of 2025: What Triggered It, Who Got Caught, and the Restoration Playbook

Through 2024 and into 2025, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ran one of its larger periodic strike-off drives — targeting companies that had not filed financial statements or annual returns for two or more consecutive years, that had not commenced operations within a year of incorporation, or that were otherwise marked as not carrying on business under Section 248. The wave caught hundreds of thousands of companies. A meaningful subset were merely dormant rather than defunct, and the restoration under Section 252 has become a busy CS workstream. This article is the working playbook — both for prevention and for restoration.

What triggers a strike-off

Under Section 248(1), the ROC can strike off a company that has:

• Failed to commence business within one year of incorporation, OR
• Not carried on any business for the immediately preceding two financial years and has not applied for dormant status under Section 455.

The 2024-25 wave specifically targeted the second leg — non-filing of AOC-4 / MGT-7 for two consecutive years was treated as a strong indicator of non-functioning, and the ROC issued STK-1 notices to a large number of companies.

The strike-off cycle, briefly

1. STK-1 — notice to the company and directors. 30 days to respond.
2. STK-2 — company-initiated voluntary strike-off (separate route, not relevant for an involuntary case).
3. STK-5 / 6 — public notice of the proposed strike-off in the Official Gazette and on the ROC website. 30 days for objections.
4. STK-7 — final notice and strike-off. The company's name is removed from the register.

Consequences of being struck off

• Company ceases to exist as a legal entity.
• Bank accounts are frozen.
• Directors of the company are disqualified under Section 164(2) (covered separately in our Section 164 article).
• Pending litigation may abate.
• Existing contracts may be voidable.
• Assets revert to the government.

The restoration route — Section 252

An aggrieved person may apply to the NCLT under Section 252 within three years of the strike-off, seeking restoration. The grounds:

• The company was, at the time of strike-off, carrying on business or in operation.
• Otherwise just for the company to be restored.

Typical applicants — the company itself (acting through directors), creditors, members, or workmen.

What the NCLT actually looks at in a Section 252 application

• Whether the strike-off was procedurally proper (STK-1 served, etc.).
• Whether the company has assets, liabilities, contracts, or ongoing business at the relevant time.
• Whether the failure to file was on account of negligence or inadvertence vs deliberate concealment.
• Whether the company has filed all overdue returns and paid the additional fees up to the date of application.
• Whether costs should be awarded (typically ₹25,000 to ₹1 lakh).

The restoration playbook

1. Confirm the strike-off and its date on the MCA portal.
2. Gather evidence of ongoing business — bank statements, tax returns, contracts, employee records, even rent receipts.
3. Prepare overdue filings — AOC-4, MGT-7 for each year of default. These must be ready to be filed immediately upon restoration.
4. Compute the additional fee exposure. The cumulative late fees can be material; CFO needs to know.
5. Draft and file the Section 252 application with NCLT. List the ROC and the company as respondents.
6. Service of notice on the ROC.
7. Hearing. Typically 1-3 hearings; the ROC's counsel attends.
8. Order. If restoration granted, file the order with the ROC. The company's name is restored.
9. File all overdue returns within the timeline set by the NCLT order.
10. Reactivate bank accounts, contracts, DIN.

The five common restoration mistakes

• Delay past the three-year window. Beyond three years, restoration becomes much harder (jurisdictional bar).
• Insufficient evidence of ongoing operation. Bank account activity alone is often not enough.
• Application without overdue returns ready. NCLT routinely conditions restoration on simultaneous filing.
• Missing the cost order. The NCLT often awards costs; under-budgeting frustrates the timeline.
• Forgetting director disqualification. Even after restoration, the directors may remain disqualified under Section 164(2) for five years — separate cure path.

Prevention — the CS playbook

• Annual AOC-4 / MGT-7 filing discipline — even for dormant companies.
• For genuinely dormant companies, formally apply for dormant status under Section 455 — annual filing burden lifts, strike-off risk evaporates.
• For companies that have ceased business — file STK-2 for voluntary strike-off; the controlled exit avoids the STK-1 surprise.
• Quarterly review of the MCA filing dashboard for every entity on the CS practice's portfolio.

How Delta Filings supports both prevention and restoration

The Delta Filings filings module tracks every AOC-4 / MGT-7 due date across every entity on the watchlist, surfaces companies approaching the two-consecutive-year default threshold, and ships a Section 252 application template with the supporting documents checklist for restoration matters. For a CS practice managing 50+ entities, the early-warning prevention coverage is one of the most-cited values.

The closing note

The strike-off regime is one of the cheaper, faster enforcement tools in the MCA's kit. The Section 252 restoration route works, but the cost in time and money — and the director disqualification — is meaningful. The investment in clean annual filings (and in formal dormant status where appropriate) is much smaller. The 2025 wave is over. The next one will come. Be ready.