2010 (4) TMI 617 - HC - Companies Law

Restoration of the name of the petitioner company to the Register of Companies seeked - Held that - Looking to the facts, it is possible that notice in respect of action under section 560, Companies Act, 1956, was not sent to the registered office of the petitioner-company. Consequently, the condition precedent for the initiation of proceedings to strike the petitioner s name off the Register of Companies, was not satisfied. At the same time, the petitioner company is stated to be a functioning one, its Director has filed this petition within the stipulated limitation period, and looking to the decision of the Bombay High Court, it is only proper that the impugned order of the respondent, which struck the petitioner s name off the Register of Companies, be set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The restoration of the petitioner company s name to the Register will be subject to the petitioner filing all outstanding documents required by law and completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or any other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns.

Summary

Issues:
Restoration of company name under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The petitioner-company filed a petition seeking restoration of its name to the Register of Companies after being struck off due to statutory compliances defaults. The Registrar of Companies initiated proceedings under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner claimed to have been active and compliant, providing evidence of maintaining documentation. However, the petitioner alleged not receiving show-cause notices or opportunities to be heard before the company's name was struck off. The petitioner highlighted address changes over the years, indicating potential issues with notice delivery. The petition was filed within the limitation period of 20 years under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

The respondent did not object to the revival of the petitioner-company, subject to the submission of outstanding statutory documents and fees. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the court emphasized the objective of section 560(6) to allow companies a chance for revival within 20 years in the interest of justice. Considering the facts and the functioning status of the petitioner-company, the court found that the condition for striking off the name was not satisfied, leading to the restoration of the company's name to the Register. The petitioner was required to fulfill all legal requirements and payments for the restoration process.

The court allowed the petitioner's petition, restoring the company's name to the Register and granting liberty to the respondent for penal action if necessary due to alleged non-compliance. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition, ensuring the restoration process was completed in accordance with section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.