2017 (2) TMI 1050 - HC - Companies Law

Restoration of the name of the Petitioner Company - Held that - The Annual Returns and Balance Sheets of the Petitioner Company from the year 1996 till date, have been filed by the Petitioner Company as annexures to the present Petition. Further, an Affidavit-cum-Undertaking, dated 24.10.2016, has been filed by Mr. Naveen Agarwal, Director of the Petitioner Company wherein he has undertaken to file all the statutory documents, required to be filed under the mandate of the provisions of the Act, from the year 1995 onwards till date, with the Respondent, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of restoration of the name of the Petitioner Company in the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent. In view of the foregoing, upon considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in light of the settled position of law, I am of the view that it would be just and proper to order restoration of the name of the Petitioner Company in the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of the name of the Petitioner Company in the Register of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The Petitioner Company filed a petition seeking restoration of its name in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The company was incorporated in 1987 but had its name struck off in 2008 due to failure to file statutory documents since 1995. The company argued that its unit in Ghaziabad was sealed in 1997, affecting its ability to file documents on time. The company's name was struck off without prior notices as required by the Act, and it was operational at the time of striking off.

The Board of Directors passed a resolution in 2016 seeking revival, and the petition was filed within the limitation period. The Respondent did not object to the relief sought, subject to the company filing all statutory documents and fees. The company submitted annual returns and balance sheets from 1996 onwards and undertook to file all required documents within six weeks of restoration.

The Court referred to a Bombay High Court decision emphasizing the purpose of Section 560(6) to provide a chance for revival within 20 years in the interest of justice. Previous judgments were cited where restoration was ordered. Considering the facts and legal precedents, the Court ordered the restoration of the Petitioner Company's name in the Register of Companies upon compliance with statutory requirements.

The company was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the Respondent and comply with all rules. No costs were awarded, and the petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.