2010 (3) TMI 673 - HC - Companies Law

Court grants petition to restore company name under Companies Act, 1956. Registrar to reinstate name, company resumes operations.

The petition under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking restoration of the Company's name in the Register of Companies was allowed by the ... Restoration of name in the Register of Companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 - striking off from the Register of Companies - restoration of rights and liabilities consequent to restoration of name - treating company as never struck off - Company (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 92 to Rule 94 restoration procedure - going concernRestoration of name in the Register of Companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 - treating company as never struck off - Company (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 92 to Rule 94 restoration procedure - Petition under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 for restoration of the Company's name in the Register of Companies and consequential directions was allowed. - HELD THAT: - The High Court, having considered the averments and the provisions of section 560(6) of the Act and Rules 92-94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, found that the petitioner had established that the Company remained a going concern, that meetings of directors and shareholders were being held and that no reply was filed by the Registrar of Companies opposing restoration. In light of these facts and submissions, the Court exercised its discretion under section 560(6) to direct restoration of the Company's name in the Register, treating the name as if it had never been struck off, and ordered consequential steps to follow the statutory procedure. The Court required the petitioner to deliver a certified copy of the order to the Registrar within the time fixed under Rule 93, after which the Registrar was to proceed in accordance with the Act and Rules. The Court made no order as to costs.Petition allowed; Registrar of Companies directed to restore the Company's name in the Register as if it had never been struck off; petitioner to furnish certified copy as per Rule 93; Registrar to act in accordance with the Act and Rules; no costs.Final Conclusion: The Company petition under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 was allowed and the Registrar of Companies was directed to restore the petitioner's name in the Register of Companies with consequential directions; the petitioner must deliver a certified copy of the order to the Registrar within the time prescribed under Rule 93 and the Registrar shall proceed in accordance with the Act and Rules. Issues:Company petition under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking restoration of the name of the Company in the Register of Companies and consequential directions for restoration of rights and liabilities.Analysis:The Company, incorporated as M/s. Animesh Poly Industries Private Limited, filed a petition seeking restoration of its name in the Register of Companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner highlighted that the Company was a going concern, with audited annual accounts filed, showing its capital structure and financial status. It was mentioned that the Company had unsecured loans for business purposes and was in operation, with plans to start commercial activities soon after restoration. The petitioner emphasized that the Company had not received any notice under section 560(6) of the Act and was closely held by family-owned promoter directors who intended to continue business operations profitably. The petitioner argued that the business could be restarted under favorable circumstances.The Court noted the submissions and arguments presented by the petitioner, along with the provisions of section 560(6) of the Act. After considering the facts and circumstances, the Court found merit in the petitioner's plea and decided to allow the petition. The Court directed the respondent Registrar of Companies to restore the name of the Company in the Register of Companies, treating it as if it had never been struck off. The petitioner was instructed to provide a certified copy of the order to the Registrar of Companies within the specified time frame. The Registrar of Companies was further directed to proceed as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. No costs were awarded in this matter.In conclusion, the judgment granted the relief sought by the petitioner, ordering the restoration of the Company's name in the Register of Companies and allowing for the continuation of business operations as if the name had never been struck off.