Company restoration on striking off may follow where continued business activity and interests of justice support reinstatement despite compliance lapses

A company struck off from the register may be restored where the petition is within the statutory period and the material suggests continuing business activity, making restoration appropriate in the interests of justice. Non-filing of statutory returns and balance sheets was attributed to internal lapse, but the primary responsibility for compliance remained with management rather than an employee alone. Possible defects in the registered office address also supported the case for non-service of notices. At the same time, the company's negligence in statutory compliance and in keeping the Registrar informed justified restoration only subject to costs and completion of required formalities.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company's name, struck off from the Register of Companies, should be restored under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, and whether such restoration could be directed despite admitted defaults in filing statutory returns and balance sheets.

Analysis: The petition was within the statutory period for restoration. The company showed material indicating continued business activity and asserted that non-filing occurred because its Company Secretary failed to submit the requisite documents and did not inform the directors of the default. The record also suggested that the registered office address on the Registrar's records may have been incorrect, making non-service of notices plausible, though no proof of intimation of change of address was produced. The Court treated the primary responsibility for statutory compliance as resting on the management, not on the employee alone, and held that the possibility of the company continuing business and making good its losses justified restoration in the interests of justice. At the same time, the company's negligence in compliance and in keeping the Registrar informed of its address change warranted costs.

Conclusion: Restoration of the company's name was held justified under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, but only on payment of costs and completion of the required formalities.

Ratio Decidendi: A company struck off from the register may be restored under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 where restoration is necessary in the interests of justice and the company remains capable of carrying on business, but such relief may be conditioned by costs when the company itself has been negligent in statutory compliance.

---