Ascot Shoes Private Limited granted restoration, must fulfill obligations, obtain 'No Objection' certificates within 8 weeks.

The court allowed the petition for restoration filed by Ascot Shoes Private Limited under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company's name was to be reinstated in the register of companies, with the requirement of fulfilling statutory obligations, payment of costs, and obtaining 'No Objection' certificates from directors within 8 weeks. The restoration was to be done as if the name had never been struck off, while the respondent retained the right to pursue penal action for alleged non-compliance with statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of company's name in the register of companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Compliance with statutory requirements for restoration.
3. Notice and opportunity of being heard before striking off the company's name.
4. Address discrepancy and communication issues.
5. Period of limitation for filing the petition.
6. Conditions for restoration and costs involved.
7. Possibility of penal action for non-compliance with statutory provisions.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, Ascot Shoes Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of its name in the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies.

2. The respondent initiated proceedings to strike off the petitioner's name due to defaults in statutory compliances, specifically non-filing of Annual Returns and Balance Sheets after 2002. The petitioner claimed to be an active company and submitted certified copies of annual returns and balance sheets to support its claim.

3. The petitioner alleged not receiving notices or an opportunity to be heard before its name was struck off. The petitioner also highlighted the absence of documents on record pertaining to the basis on which the respondent concluded that the company was not carrying on business.

4. Address discrepancies were noted, with the respondent claiming that notices were sent to an incorrect address. The petitioner failed to provide proof of intimation of the change of its registered office address to the respondent.

5. The counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petition fell within the period of limitation stipulated by Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

6. The respondent did not object to the restoration of the petitioner's name, subject to the filing of all statutory documents, payment of fees, and submission of 'No Objection' certificates from directors. The judgment cited previous cases emphasizing the importance of restoration for the company's members and creditors.

7. The court allowed the petition for restoration, subject to payment of costs and completion of formalities within 8 weeks. The company's name, directors, and members were to be restored to the register as if the name had not been struck off. The respondent was granted liberty to proceed with penal action for alleged non-compliance with Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues and the court's decision in the judgment regarding the restoration of the company's name in the register of companies.

---