Mandatory notice requirements for striking-off: non-compliance vitiates strike-off, enabling restoration of company name with costs.

Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory notice and service procedure required before striking a company from the register under Section 560(1)-(2); the prescribed inquiry letter, registered-post follow-up and prior gazette publication sequence were not observed, rendering the strike-off procedurally defective. Because the statutory preconditions for exercising the registrar's power were unmet, the appropriate remedial consequence is restoration of the company's name to the register and setting aside of the impugned gazette notification; restoration may be granted subject to imposition of costs for the delay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the striking off of the company from the register complied with the procedural requirements of Section 560(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) Whether the name of the company should be restored to the register upon non-compliance with those provisions.

Issue (i): Whether the striking off of the company from the register complied with the procedural requirements of Section 560(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 560 prescribes that where the registrar has reasonable cause to believe a company is not carrying on business or in operation, the registrar must send an inquiry letter and, if no reply, send a second letter by registered post, and only upon failure to receive reply to the second letter publish a notice in the official gazette expressing opinion of striking off. The record shows the prescribed steps under sub-sections (1) and (2) were not followed prior to the publication of the gazette notification striking the company's name.

Conclusion: The striking off did not comply with the procedural requirements of Section 560(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether the name of the company should be restored to the register upon non-compliance with those provisions.

Analysis: Failure to follow the mandatory notice and service procedure under Section 560 resulted in a defective exercise of the registrar's power to strike off. Restoration addresses the deficiency caused by non-compliance and is an available remedy where the statutory preconditions for striking off have not been met; the elapsed time since the notification permits imposition of costs as a discretionary condition of relief.

Conclusion: The company's name shall be restored to the register and the gazette notification striking the name is set aside; a cost is imposed on the company for the delay.

Final Conclusion: The non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements for striking off under Section 560(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, warranted restoration of the company's name to the register and setting aside of the impugned gazette notification, subject to payment of costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the registrar fails to comply with the mandatory notice and service requirements of Section 560(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the action of striking off is vitiated and the appropriate remedy is restoration of the company's name to the register.

---