https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113372 The court granted the petitioner's request for restoration of the company's name to the Register of Companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent did not oppose revival, provided outstanding documents and fees were submitted. Relying on a Bombay High Court ruling, the court emphasized the 20-year window for revival under section 560(6) to serve justice. Finding the company still operational, the court reinstated its name, mandating compliance with legal obligations. The judgment closed the case, allowing the respondent to pursue penalties for any non-compliance. en-us Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113372 The court granted the petitioner's request for restoration of the company's name to the Register of Companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent did not oppose revival, provided outstanding documents and fees were submitted. Relying on a Bombay High Court ruling, the court emphasized the 20-year window for revival under section 560(6) to serve justice. Finding the company still operational, the court reinstated its name, mandating compliance with legal obligations. The judgment closed the case, allowing the respondent to pursue penalties for any non-compliance. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113372