Court grants restoration of company name in register under Companies Act, emphasizing compliance and penal action.

The court granted the petition for restoration of the company's name in the register under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner's name was struck off due to non-compliance with filing requirements, despite claiming lack of notice and opportunity to be heard. Acknowledging the company's continuous operation and efforts to rectify the situation, the court allowed restoration upon submission of outstanding documents and payment of fees. The court emphasized the importance of compliance and granted the restoration within a specified timeframe, while permitting the respondent to pursue penal action for non-compliance with the Companies Act.

---

---

Issues:
Petition for restoration of company's name in the register under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 due to defaults in statutory compliances.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company incorporated in 1984, faced proceedings initiated by the respondent to strike its name off the register due to non-compliance, specifically for not filing Annual Returns from 2000 to 2015 and Balance Sheets from 1998 to 2015. The respondent followed the procedure under Section 560 of the Companies Act, including sending notices and publishing a notification in the Official Gazette. However, the petitioner claimed it did not receive any notices or show-cause notices as required by law and was not given an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner also highlighted the lack of documentation supporting the decision to strike off its name.

The petitioner asserted that it has been continuously operational since its inception and provided evidence of its financial activities to support this claim. It was acknowledged that while the company's accounts were prepared and audited annually, there were lapses in filing necessary documents with the Registrar of Companies due to lack of legal knowledge and oversight by the directors and the accountant. Efforts to rectify the situation were made only after the directors discovered the company's name had been struck off.

In response, the respondent expressed no objection to restoring the petitioner's name, subject to the submission of all outstanding statutory documents and requisite fees. The court referenced a previous Bombay High Court decision emphasizing the opportunity for companies to be revived within 20 years if deemed necessary in the interest of justice. The court acknowledged the petitioner's active status and the timely filing of the restoration petition within the statutory limitation period.

Considering the circumstances, the court set aside the order striking off the petitioner's name from the register but emphasized the need for better compliance practices. The restoration was granted upon payment of costs and completion of formalities within a specified timeframe. The judgment also allowed the respondent to pursue penal action against the petitioner for non-compliance with certain provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

---