Company restoration to the register under section 560(6) upheld where no stakeholder prejudice was shown and revival prospects existed.

A company's restoration to the register under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 was justified where the petition was filed within time, no creditor prejudice was shown, and the company demonstrated viable prospects for revival through a renewed industrial venture. The Court noted that the Registrar of Companies raised no substantive objection, subject to compliance with pending statutory returns and related formalities. On that basis, the company's name was ordered to be restored to the register, subject to filing requirements, publication, and deposit of expenses. The stated principle is that restoration is appropriate where the circumstances support revival in the interest of justice and stakeholders are not prejudiced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company's name should be restored to the register of companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The restoration request was supported by the company's subsequent prospects, including likely gas allocation for the cold storage project and acquisition of land for a renewed industrial venture. The Registrar of Companies raised no substantive objection, subject to compliance with the filing of pending statutory returns and other formalities. The Court also noted that the petition was within time and that no creditor prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The company's name was ordered to be restored to the register, subject to compliance with the directions regarding statutory filings, publication, and deposit of expenses.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration under section 560(6) is warranted where the petition is timely, no prejudice to stakeholders is shown, and the circumstances justify revival of the company in the interest of justice.

---