Mandatory strike-off procedure and correct CIN notice are essential; invalid Gazette reliance rendered the company's removal void.

Mandatory notice and inquiry requirements for striking off a company's name were not complied with, and the Gazette notification relied on related to a different CIN, so the striking off was invalid and void ab initio. The court also rejected objections based on delay and alternative remedy, noting that restoration was sought within the statutory period and that the existence of a statutory forum did not bar writ relief where the foundational strike-off action itself was defective. The company's name was directed to be restored to the register of companies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the company's striking off was invalid for non-compliance with the statutory notice procedure and for reliance on a Gazette notification relating to a different CIN; (ii) whether the petition was barred by delay or by the availability of an alternative remedy before the National Company Law Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the company's striking off was invalid for non-compliance with the statutory notice procedure and for reliance on a Gazette notification relating to a different CIN.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required inquiry and notice before striking off the name of a company, and the record relied upon by the respondent did not correspond to the petitioner's company because the CIN in the Gazette notification was different. A notice or notification issued for a different corporate identity could not sustain the impugned action, and the defect went to the root of the matter.

Conclusion: The striking off was held to be invalid and void ab initio.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition was barred by delay or by the availability of an alternative remedy before the National Company Law Tribunal.

Analysis: The restoration provision under the Companies Act, 1956 permitted an application within twenty years from publication in the Official Gazette, and the petition was within that period. The availability of a statutory remedy was also not treated as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where no valid Gazette notification had been issued for the petitioner's company.

Conclusion: The objections of delay and alternative remedy were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the company's name was directed to be restored to the register of companies.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the mandatory striking-off procedure, coupled with reliance on a Gazette notification not pertaining to the concerned company, renders the action void; restoration may be ordered within the statutory period, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar writ relief where the foundational action itself is invalid.

---