Restoration of struck-off company requires member or creditor status at dissolution, and proof that restoration is just and beneficial.

Section 353(6) of the Companies Act 1948 was construed as conferring a right to seek restoration only on a company, member or creditor existing in that capacity at the date of dissolution. Persons who acquired shares or debts only after the company had been struck off could not qualify, because membership and creditor status cannot arise in relation to a non-existent company. Even if qualification were assumed, restoration was refused because the evidence showed no substantial practical benefit: the company had long ceased effective control, the register had been destroyed, and its records and affairs were severely impaired. The court therefore declined to restore the company's name to the register.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether persons who acquired shares or debts after a company had been struck off the register were entitled to petition for restoration of the company's name under section 353(6) of the Companies Act, 1948; (ii) whether, on the facts, the court should exercise its discretion to restore the company's name to the register.

Issue (i): Whether persons who acquired shares or debts after a company had been struck off the register were entitled to petition for restoration of the company's name under section 353(6) of the Companies Act, 1948.

Analysis: The subsection was construed as creating a legal fiction limited to what was necessary to give the provision practical effect. The right to apply was held to belong to a company, member, or creditor who had that character at the date of dissolution. A person who purported to become a member or creditor only after the company had ceased to exist could not be treated as a member or creditor within the subsection, because membership and creditor status could not arise in relation to a non-existent company.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to petition under section 353(6) if they acquired their shares or debts only after dissolution.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the court should exercise its discretion to restore the company's name to the register.

Analysis: Even assuming the petitioners could qualify, the evidence did not show any substantial practical benefit from restoration. The company had long ceased effective control, the register had been destroyed, the records of shareholders were very old, and the company's affairs were heavily impaired. In those circumstances, the court required stronger proof of real benefit to members and creditors before granting restoration.

Conclusion: The court declined to exercise its discretion to restore the company's name to the register.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed both on the petitioners' entitlement to apply and, in any event, on the discretionary merits, so restoration was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: For restoration under section 353(6), the applicant must be a member or creditor at the date of dissolution, and restoration will not be ordered unless sufficient grounds show that it is just and beneficial to restore the company.

---