IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Company Petition No.5 of 2011 M/S Shashi Galvanising Pvt. Ltd. through it’s Managing Director, Surendra Narayan Singh, S/o Late Indradeo Narayan Singh, R/o Karman Tola, Arrah, P.S. Nawada, District-Bhojpur, Bihar presently residing at Mohalla- A/26, Ashokpuri Colony, Khajpura, Baily Road, Patna, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna, District- Patna, Bihar Versus 1. The Union Of India, through the Registrar of Companies, Bihar & Jharkhand 2. The Registrar of Companies, Bihar & Jharkhand, Maurya Lok Complex, A Block, 4th Floor, Western Wing, Dakbunglow Road, Patna- 800001, Bihar ---------------------------------- 6. 3.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Registrar of Companies. The application has been filed for restoring the name of the petitioner-company to the Register of Companies after setting aside the Gazette Notification dated 15.12.2007 at Sl. No. 149 relating to the company as also the subsequent letter dated 10.2.2011 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand. The petitioner-company was incorporated on 22.8.1983. It is not in dispute that the company continued to carry on its business and also filed statutory documents including Annual Returns till the financial year ending 31.3.2005. Thereafter, it is the stand of the petitioner that due to some dispute among the directors of the company the returns could not be filed with the Registrar of Companies for a year or two, but the company continued to carry on its 2 business, in support of which the Balance Sheets and the Profit and Loss Accounts of the company for the period from 1.4.2005 till 31.3.2010 duly audited by a firm of Chartered Accountants, have been filed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-company that although there was some lapse on the part of the petitioner but the Registrar of Companies has struck off the name of the petitioner-company from the register of companies without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 560 (1), (2) and (3) of the Companies Act as no notices were issued to the company under the said provisions before the name was finally struck off from the Register of Companies. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Registrar of Companies, the stand taken is that the Registrar of Companies has no objection if the name of the petitioner- company is ordered to be restored to the Register of Companies provided the company satisfies this Court that it was carrying on its business at the time when its name was struck off and further it agrees to file all the statutory Returns, Balance Sheets and Profit and Loss Accounts and Annual Returns and such other forms which are required to be filed within thirty days along with the fees and additional fees in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act and the 3 Rules. So far as the stand of the petitioner regarding non- compliance of Section 560 (1), (2) and (3) of the Companies Act is concerned, it is stated that the provisions were duly complied but the respondent is not in a position to produce office copies of the notices as the file has been misplaced. On a consideration of the materials on the record including the audited Balance Sheets and the Profit and Loss Accounts of the company, it is evident that the company has been carrying on its business on a regular basis continuously. The admitted position is that the returns were not filed for a year or two when the Registrar of Companies had taken action under sub-Section (5) of Section 560 of the Act and struck off the name of the petitioner-company from the Register of Companies on 15.12.2007. But as regards the specific stand of the respondents that the provisions of sub- sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 560 of the Act were complied before the final action of striking off the name of the company under Sub-Section (5) of the said section, the respondent-Registrar of Companies has been unable to show that as a matter of fact the statutory provisions of issuing notices under the said sub-sections has been complied with. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-company has succeeded in making 4 out a case of restoration of the name of the company in the Register of Companies and further, it is just that the name of the company is restored to the Register of Companies. It is accordingly ordered that the name of the company shall stand restored to the Register of Companies. However, the petitioner-company shall be obliged to file all the returns as required by the Act and the Rules along with filing of the fees and additional fees in terms thereof. Let the same be done within a period of three months from today. The application is accordingly allowed but with cost payable to the Registrar of Companies quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)