2010 (7) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The grievance of the petitioners is that the name of the petitioner-company has been wrongly struck off the Register. 2. I notice that there is some procedural irregularity in the issuance of the notices under section 560. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 560 contemplate two notices to be first given. The first notice is referred to in section 5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that the first notice was issued on March 24, 2006. The petitioner denies that this notice was received by it. But I am not going into the controversy. The second notice is dated December 30, 2006, stating that because the letter dated March 24, 2006, was not replied to, the company would be deemed to be defunct under section 560(3). 4. Here, there is a violation of the above statutory requirem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are not good. Naturally, only after hearing the company or at least giving it reasonable opportunity to be heard should any determination under section 560 be made. 7. Therefore, the action taken to declare the company defunct should be set aside. All the entries made in the Register or website to the effect should be reversed for the time being. The company should be given a hearing according t....