Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 234 - HC - Companies LawApplication for restoration of company name as per Section 560(6) of the Companies Act - Provision allows restoration only in case of company is aggrieved - Name strike off due to unable to manage affairs of the company - Held that - It is no-doubt true that sub-section (6) of Section 560 provides that company aggrieved could approach this Court. Further, the said provision itself contains that this Court could consider the same, if it is otherwise just that the company be restored to the register. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view and when there are no allegations against the petitioner company with regard to misdemeanor on their part and the application for striking off the company being sought for any collateral purpose, the claim as put forth by the petitioner considering that striking had been in the circumstance when they were unable to manage the affairs of the company would have to be accepted. In such circumstance, when the board of the company has presently resolved to revive the company and is seeking restoration of its name in the Registrar of Companies, the contention put forth by the petitioner would have to be accepted. In any event, restoration would be subject to the condition that the petitioner company would comply with other statutory requirement for the periods from the date it was struck off till the date of its restoration. - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues:
- Restoration of company name in the register of the Registrar of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a direction to restore their company's name in the register of the Registrar of Companies from the date it was struck off. The company had initially filed an application to be struck off due to business difficulties under the 'Easy Exit' scheme. However, the company later decided to revive due to new business opportunities, leading to the current petition for restoration. 2. The respondent contended that the company's name was struck off based on the company's own request, not due to any action by the respondent. They argued that Section 560(6) of the Companies Act only allows restoration if the company is aggrieved by the respondent's action. The respondent left the decision to the Court, emphasizing the need to consider the law and the petitioner's contentions. 3. The Court noted that the company had indeed applied for striking off its name due to business difficulties and lack of business, leading to the strike-off in 2011. Section 560(6) allows aggrieved companies to seek restoration, provided it is just to do so. Since there were no allegations of misconduct or collateral purposes in the strike-off application, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim for restoration. 4. Considering the company's board resolution to revive the business and restore its name in the register, the Court found no impediment to granting the relief sought. The restoration was subject to the company complying with statutory requirements from the strike-off date till restoration. The Court cited a previous decision in CoP No.122/2013 to support its decision. 5. Consequently, the Court issued a direction to the Registrar of Companies to restore the petitioner company's name in the register from the date of strike-off, subject to compliance with statutory requirements post that date. The petition was allowed based on the above analysis and decision. This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment regarding the restoration of the company name in the register of the Registrar of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, providing a comprehensive overview of the Court's decision and reasoning.
|