Restoration of company name under Section 247 allowed where contested recovery suit and active director participation existed.

Restoration of a struck-off corporate name is considered where statutory strike-off procedures were followed but substantive contested litigation existed at the time of notice; the analysis emphasises that an ongoing recovery suit actively contested by the petitioner and acknowledged by directors indicates a disputed claim relevant to restoration. The operative effect stated is restoration of the company name to the register and an award of costs against opposing parties, with a specified pleader's fee to be taxed. The statutory strike-off and director participation standards govern the outcome.

---

---

Issues: Whether the name of Shalini Mills Ltd. should be restored to the register of companies under Section 247(6) of the Companies Act, 1913.

Analysis: The Registrar proceeded under Section 247(3) and published notices, and the company name was struck off under sub section (5) of Section 247. At the time of the statutory notice a suit for recovery by the petitioner against the company was pending and being actively contested; the directors were aware of the contested litigation and one director informed the petitioner's attorneys after removal. These facts demonstrate an existing disputed claim and active participation by directors in the proceedings, which are relevant under the statutory scheme governing striking off and restoration.

Conclusion: The petition succeeds; the name of Shalini Mills Ltd. is to be restored to the register of companies and the petitioner is entitled to costs from opponents 1 to 9, with pleader's fee to be taxed at Rs. 10/-.

---