Just a moment...
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 petitioner company's name, which had been struck off the register for failure to file statutory returns and balance sheets, should be restored under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, and on what terms and conditions.
Analysis: The petition was filed within the statutory period of twenty years from publication of the striking-off notice. The company was shown to be functional, and the record indicated that notices under Section 560 had been issued to the correct registered address. The Court held that the primary responsibility for statutory compliance remained with the management, even if filing had been entrusted to professionals. At the same time, restoration was considered justified in the interests of justice because the company was active and the statutory remedy under Section 560(6) is intended to permit revival where appropriate. The Court also relied on Rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 to impose costs and conditions beyond the ordinary norm where the circumstances warranted it.
Conclusion: The company's name was ordered to be restored to the register, subject to filing all outstanding statutory documents, payment of late fees and charges, and payment of exemplary costs of Rs. 75,000 to the Official Liquidator's common pool fund and Rs. 25,000 to the Registrar of Companies. Liberty was reserved to take penal action for alleged default under Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956.