TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants petition to restore company name under Companies Act, 1956. Registrar to reinstate name, company resumes operations.</h1> <h3>Animesh Poly Industries (P.) Ltd. Versus Registrar of Companies</h3> 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 ... Company - Restoration of, struck off by Registrar 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
