2009 (10) TMI 523 - HC - Companies Law

Restoration of company name in the register of the Companies - Held that - Having considered the averments made by the petitioner in the petition and also the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the provisions of section 560(6) of the Act, it is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for restoration of its name in the register of the companies. Appeal allowed.The name of petitioner-company is directed to be restored by the respondent in the register of companies treating as if its name was never been struck off from the rolls of the register.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Restoration of company name in the register of companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts of the Case: The petitioner company filed a Company Petition seeking direction to restore its name in the register of companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company had undergone name changes and was actively involved in various business activities, including construction, real estate, and manufacturing.

2. Legal Basis: The petitioner company argued that it was not given any prior notice before its name was struck off from the register of companies. The company had been regularly filing income tax returns and was operational with two directors who were also shareholders.

3. Financial Standing: The petitioner company had an authorized share capital of Rs. 25,00,000 and had obtained financial facilities from a bank. The latest audited balance sheet showed fixed assets, debtors, creditors, and current assets, indicating the company's financial stability and operational status.

4. Operational Status: The petitioner company was actively conducting board meetings and shareholder meetings, demonstrating its ongoing business activities. The promoter directors were committed to running the company profitably, ensuring the enhancement of net worth and profits for shareholders.

5. Court Decision: After considering the petitioner's arguments and provisions of section 560(6) of the Act, the Court found merit in the case for restoration of the company's name in the register of companies. The Court ordered the respondent Registrar to restore the company's name as if it was never struck off, emphasizing the interest of justice.

6. Final Orders: The Court allowed the petition, directing the restoration of the company's name in the register of companies. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the order to the Registrar for further compliance with the Act and Rules. No costs were awarded in this matter.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the operational status of the company in deciding the restoration of the company's name in the register of companies under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.