w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Saluja Alloy Castings Private Ltd. v/s Registrar of Companies

    Company Petition No. 33 of 2013

    Decided On, 09 December 2013

    At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

    For the Petitioner: Vijayesh Atre, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------.



Judgment Text

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. This Company Petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") read with Rule 92 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules") has been filed seeking direction to the Registrar of Companies, Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh, to restore the name of the company in the register of companies, and consequential direction for restoration of the rights and liabilities of the company from the date of striking off till the restoration of its name as if the name of the company was never struck off from the Register of Companies.

2. The notice of the petition was issued to the Registrar of Companies on 4.9.2013 which has been duly served but no reply has been filed and no one has appeared for the respondent/Registrar to oppose the prayer made in the petition.

3. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner Company was incorporated at Gwalior on 4.10.1999. The objects of the Company are set forth in the memorandum of Association as enclosed with the petition. It has been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner Company is a going concern, operational but has not started commercial activity. The last audited annual accounts of the petitioner Company has been placed on record. It has further been pleaded that when the petitioner Company had approached the portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for filing of its pending documents as per the requirement of the Act, it came to know that the status of the Company for electronic filing of the document is showing as "strike off".

4. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner Company has not started commercial activities but it intends to start business operations immediately after restoration of its name in the Register of Companies, and that the name of the petitioner Company has been struck off from the register of the Companies in ex parte proceedings. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Company is a closely held, family owned company and the meetings of the Board of Directors of the Company are regularly taking place and that the affairs of the petitioner Company have not been wound up, and it is a going concern and now the Company has favourable circumstances to start its commercial activity. It has further been pleaded that the Company can be profitably operated by the promoter directors which shall enhance the net worth of the shareholders out of the profits. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that no person will be prejudiced if the name of the petitioner Company is restored in the Register of Companies as maintained by the respondent.

5. Having considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the provisions contained in Section 560(6) of the Act and the averments made in the petition, I am of the view that it would be just and proper to order restoration of the name of the Company in the register of Companies.

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent Registrar is directed to restore the name of Company in the register of the Companies

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

treating as if its name was never been struck off from the rolls of the register. Petitioner is directed to deliver the respondent Registrar of Companies a certified copy of this order within the time fixed under Rule 93 of the Rules. The Registrar thereafter shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the Act and the Rules. No order as to costs.
O R