Court restores company name under Companies Act, 1956 despite long non-compliance.

The court allowed the petition for restoration of the company's name under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent did not oppose the restoration, provided the petitioner fulfills statutory requirements and pays fees. Despite long-standing non-compliance with annual filings, the court granted the restoration, emphasizing the need for companies to revive within the specified period. The petitioner was directed to meet obligations within eight weeks, with the respondent retaining the right to penalize for any further non-compliance under the Companies Act, 1956 and Rules, including Section 162.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of company name in the register of companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Restoration of Company Name
The petitioner, Apra Automobiles Private Limited, filed a petition seeking restoration of its name in the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company was incorporated on 31.05.1995 with the objective of engaging in various business activities related to motor vehicles and commercial properties. The respondent initiated proceedings to strike off the company's name due to defaults in statutory compliances, specifically non-filing of Annual Returns and Balance Sheets after 1999. The petitioner claimed to have been actively carrying on its business, supported by documents such as licenses, collaboration agreements, and land ownership for commercial activities. The petitioner alleged not receiving any notices or opportunities for being heard before the name was struck off under Section 560(5) by the respondent. The respondent, however, mentioned discrepancies in the registered office address and the actual working location of the company, highlighting the lack of proof of intimation of address change to the respondent.

In the judgment, it was noted that the petitioner filed the petition within the limitation period specified by Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent expressed no objection to the restoration of the company's name subject to the petitioner fulfilling requirements such as filing statutory documents, annual returns, balance sheets, and paying applicable fees. Citing a previous decision by the Bombay High Court, the court emphasized the importance of giving companies an opportunity to revive within a specified period. The court acknowledged the need for the petitioner to ensure statutory compliances, especially regarding annual returns and balance sheets not filed for almost seventeen years. Despite this, the court allowed the petition, ordering the restoration of the company's name upon payment of costs and completion of formalities within eight weeks. The judgment also granted liberty to the respondent to take penal action against the petitioner for any other alleged defaults in compliance with the Companies Act, 1956 and Rules, including Section 162.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition for restoration of the company's name, subject to specified conditions, highlighting the importance of statutory compliances and the responsibility of management in fulfilling legal obligations under the Companies Act, 1956.

---