Lsp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.877 of 2008 Hitesh Jayantilal Pokar & Gopi Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. The Registrar of Companies of Bombay. ...Respondent Mr. Hemant Sethi i/b. Hemant Sethi & Co. for the petitioner. Mr. C.J.Joy i/b. S.K.Mohapatra - R.D. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : : : 12th November, 2008 12th November, 2008 12th November, 2008 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 prays for restoration of the registration of the petitioner company in the register maintained by the respondents under the provisions of the Companies Act. The respondent struck off the name of the petitioner company from the said register consequent to issuing notice dated 27th July, 2007, letter dated 25-1-2008 and notice dated 28-7-2008. This stand is taken by the respondents in the affidavit filed by Shri Kovvuri Suryanarayana working as Assistant Registrar of Companies. However, when the officer was called upon to produce record to substantiate the fact that such notices/letter was 2 actually despatched by the petitioner and that the same must be duly served on the petitioner, the Counsel appearing for the respondent has expressed inability to do so. Indeed, it was submitted on behalf of respondent that the record cannot be produced on account of shifting of record in the office of the Registrar. Significantly, in the affidavit as filed before this Court, it is nowhere mentioned that the said notice and/or letter was sent by registered post A.D. to the petitioner and that the same was duly served on the petitioner. Thus understood the case made out by the petitioner in the petition as filed before this Court that no prior notice was served on the petitioner sent by registered post A.D. remains unrebutted. In this view of the matter the only option before this Court is to accede to the prayer made in this petition in terms of prayer clause (a) on condition that the petitioner shall comply with all the statutory formalities required under the provisions of Companies Act. Counsel for the respondent submits that cost be provided to the respondents. That request is unacceptable. It is because of the illegal procedure followed by the respondent, the petitioner had to suffer the consequence and which is being remedied only by way of present petition. Infact the petitioner should be entitled for 3 cost of such litigation. Be that as it may, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) on above terms. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]