2026 (8) TMI 1710

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2026, passed in W.P.(C) 11302/2023. 2. By way of the said judgment, this Court has held as follows: "xxxxxxx 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before striking off the name of the petitioner's company, the mandatory procedure under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') was completely disregarded. He points out that the Registrar of Companies never issued the first letter of inquiry under Section 560(1), nor the second notice by registered post under Section 560(2). No notice was published in the Official Gazette under Section 560(3), and consequently the final action under Section 560(5) was never validly taken. He argues that the striking off is, therefore, illegal and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....strar of Companies (1984 SCC OnLine Bom 342), has held that a restoration petition filed within 20 years is maintainable, and that the Court can order restoration even if the company was not carrying on business at the time of striking off, if it is otherwise just to do so. The Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat (1981) 1 SCC 495 has further held that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation to avail a legal remedy. Hence, the objection of delay is rejected. 7. The respondent's contention that the Petitioner should have availed the alternative statutory remedy before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is found to be without merit. Since this Court has held that no valid Gazette....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not proper. 5. Since, the name of the petitioner-company has still not been restored by the Registrar of Companies, the present petition has come to be filed. 6. This Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the appeal filed by the respondent before the Division Bench of this Court has been withdrawn today, i.e., 24th August, 2026, with liberty to file a Review Petition against the aforesaid judgment dated 29^th April, 2026. 7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the Circular dated 24th February, 2026, issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India ("MCA") and submits that there are certain compliances, which....