1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi COMPANY PETITION NO. 182 OF 2010. Kamlesh G. Mehta & Anr. ..Petitioners. vs. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Dinyar Maadan, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir & Vishal Kanade, for Petitioners. Mr. C.J. Joy, a/w. Mrs. Lata Patne, i/b. S.K. Mohapatra, for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 7TH MAY 2010. P. C. 1. The Company Petition is taken out by the shareholder and Director of the respondent no.2 company under Sections 560(6) and 560(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 for setting aside the notification no.MCA-RoC-Mumbai/sec560/2008/00306 dated 8th September 2009 issued by the respondent no.1, striking off the name of the respondent no. 2 and seeking restoration of the registration of the respondent no.2. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent no.1 states that he has no objection if the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). However, the company may direct the respondent no. 2 to make good the offences arising out 2 of non-compliance of Sections 266A to 266G, 159 to 162, 166, 220 etc. of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. The Company Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). However, the respondent no. 2 shall file all statutory returns and compliances electronically under the various provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies within a period of eight weeks from today. The respondent no. 2 has stated that the Company shall make appropriate application under Section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956, for compounding the aforesaid violations/offences. The statement is accepted. 4. The parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court. 5. The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]