2013 (4) TMI 58 - HC - Companies Law

Court denies company's petition for name restoration under Companies Act, citing Fast Track Scheme implications.

M/s. Dasaprakash Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Registrar of Companies Tamil Nadu

The court dismissed the company's petition seeking restoration of its name to the Register of Companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. ... Petition for Restoration of the name of the petitioner company - petitioner claims that the application for restoration of the name has been filed within 20 years, the period prescribed in sub section (6) of section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. – Held that - The company, having volunteered for the removal of its name from the Register, cannot be said to be an aggrieved person for seeking restoration of its name to the Register of Companies. The benefit of sub section (6) of section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 for getting the name of the company restored to the Register of Companies after having been struck off from the Register of companies as a penal measure, shall not be available to a company, who has volunteered for the removal of its name from the Register of Companies under the Scheme floated in 2000. Hence this court comes to the conclusion that the present company petition under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 by the petitioner company deserves to be dismissed. Issues:1. Restoration of the name of a company under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 after being struck off from the Register of Companies.Analysis:The petitioner company filed a petition under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking the restoration of its name to the Register of Companies after it was struck off on 13.09.2000. The Government of India had introduced a Fast Track Scheme to enable non-starter companies and those wishing to exit the corporate form without voluntary winding up to get their names removed from the Register by following a simple process within a limited period. The petitioner company voluntarily availed this scheme and had its name struck off. However, after nearly 12 years, the company sought restoration, claiming to have been actively doing business and holding regular meetings despite its name being struck off.The court acknowledged the provision under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, which allows for restoration if an applicant feels aggrieved by the removal of the company's name from the Register. However, it noted that the scheme under which the petitioner company's name was removed aimed to dissolve companies that did not take off or wanted to exit without winding up. The court emphasized that a company voluntarily opting for name removal under the scheme cannot claim to be aggrieved by the removal and seek restoration.The court highlighted that the scheme did not provide an option for companies voluntarily removed from the Register to seek restoration under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. It concluded that the benefit of restoration after being struck off as a penal measure is not available to a company that volunteered for removal under the 2000 scheme. Therefore, the court dismissed the company petition seeking restoration under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.In conclusion, the court held that the petitioner company, having voluntarily opted for name removal under the Fast Track Scheme, could not be considered an aggrieved party eligible for restoration under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. As such, the court dismissed the company petition seeking restoration of its name to the Register of Companies.