9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 560(6) of the Companies Act. They are seeking a direction to the respondent to restore the name of the petitioner company in the register of the Registrar of Companies w.e.f. 26.3.2011, the date on which the petitioner company was struck off from the register of the Registrar of Companies. 2. The petitioner was incorporated on 13.9.1985. Subsequently, since petitioner had encountered certain di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 3. The respondent who was notified has filed the objection statement. It is contended that the striking off the name of the petitioner from the register was not on account of any proceedings initiated by the respondent, but it was on their own request and as such the provision as contained in Section 560(6) of the Companies Act cannot be made applicable to the present facts. It is contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e.f. 26.3.2011. 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 wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. In this regard, I am also fortified by the decision taken by this Court on 29.10.2013 in CoP No.122/2013. 6. Hence, a direction is issued to the Registrar of Companies to restore the name of the petitioner company in the register w.e.f. 26.3.2011 subject to the statutory compliance subsequent to the said date. In terms of the above, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
