Voluntary winding up and dissolution depend on registration of the return, not mere filing, with court intervention available for wrongful refusal.

Section 217(4) of the Companies Act, 1913 was construed to mean that the three-month period for dissolution runs from registration of the return, not from mere filing. The Registrar's refusal or failure to register the return could not amount to constructive registration, so automatic dissolution did not occur on that basis. Section 215 was read as preserving the Court's power to intervene throughout voluntary winding up until actual dissolution, and the proper course where registration was wrongly refused was to seek Court intervention. The company was therefore not dissolved, and the suit could not be rejected on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company had been dissolved under section 217(4) of the Companies Act, 1913 despite the Registrar's failure to register the return, and whether the suit was therefore not maintainable.

Analysis: The three-month period for dissolution under section 217(4) runs from the registration of the return, not merely from its filing. The Registrar's refusal or failure to register cannot be treated as constructive registration. Section 215 empowers the Court to intervene in a voluntary winding up and to make necessary orders, and that provision applies throughout the voluntary liquidation process until actual dissolution. Reading the provisions together, the failure of the Registrar to register the return did not bring about automatic dissolution, and the proper remedy was to approach the Court if registration was wrongly refused.

Conclusion: The company had not been dissolved, and the appellant's suit could not be dismissed on that ground.

---