Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the company's name should be restored to the Register of Companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, and on what terms, including costs and compliance conditions.
Analysis: The petition was filed within the 20-year period under section 560(6). The material showed that the company had been functioning, but its statutory returns and balance sheets had not been filed for several years, and the Registrar had struck off its name after following the prescribed procedure. The Court held that restoration was justified in the interests of justice because the company could continue to function, but it also found serious negligence in compliance and in failing to intimate the change of registered office. The Court further held that, under rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, costs could be tailored to the circumstances rather than confined to the Registrar's ordinary costs.
Conclusion: Restoration of the company's name was allowed, subject to filing all outstanding statutory documents, payment of late fees and charges, payment of Rs. 50,000 as exemplary costs to the common pool fund of the Official Liquidator, and payment of Rs. 25,000 to the Registrar of Companies. Liberty was reserved to proceed with penal action for any default under section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956.