Court grants restoration of toy company's name on Register of Companies under Companies Act.

The court allowed the petition for restoration of the company's name on the Register of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company, involved in toy manufacturing, had its name struck off due to statutory non-compliances. Despite acknowledging the company's active status and considering the lapse in compliance, the court emphasized the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements. The petitioner was required to pay exemplary costs and meet outstanding obligations to the Official Liquidator and Registrar of Companies within a specified timeframe for the restoration to take effect.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of company's name on the Register of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Restoration of Company's Name
The petitioner, a private limited company, sought restoration of its name on the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company, involved in the manufacture and distribution of toys, had its name struck off due to defaults in statutory compliances, specifically for not filing balance-sheets and annual returns for several years. The respondent followed the prescribed procedure under Section 560, issuing necessary notices before striking off the company's name. The petitioner claimed to have remained active since incorporation and submitted relevant documentation to support its claim. The petitioner argued that it did not receive any show cause notice before the action was taken by the respondent. The company attributed the non-compliance to the illness of a director's wife, leading to a lapse in filing statutory documents. The respondent did not object to the revival of the company, subject to the petitioner fulfilling outstanding statutory requirements and paying applicable fees.

In considering the case, the court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the opportunity for revival within a specified period and the need for restoration in the interest of justice. The court acknowledged the petitioner as a running company and noted the lapse in statutory compliances for almost eight years. While allowing the petition for restoration, the court highlighted the importance of ensuring proper compliance, stating that the responsibility lies with the management. The court imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner for the casual handling of statutory requirements, emphasizing the need for responsible business conduct. The restoration was subject to the payment of costs to the Official Liquidator and the Registrar of Companies within a specified timeframe, along with any late fees or charges. Upon compliance with all formalities, the company's name, directors, and members were to be restored to the Register as if the name had not been struck off, in accordance with Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

In conclusion, the petition for restoration was allowed, subject to the payment of costs and completion of all formalities, leading to the reinstatement of the company's name on the Register of Companies.

---