The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Registrar of Companies to follow the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 560 of the Companies Act before striking off a company's name from the register.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Registrar of Companies.

2. The application has been filed for quashing of the Gazette Notification No. 43 dated 12.10.2007 published in the Gazette of India dated 27.10.2007, by which the name of the company, M/s Gautam Buddha Childrens Hospital Private Limited has been struck off from the Register of Companies under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act.

3. M/s Gautam Buddha Childrens Hospital Pvt. Ltd. was registered under the Companies Act on 16.11.1992 having registration No. 03-05105 of 1992-93. There were four Directors of the Company on 29.8.2000. Since disputes and differences had cropped up between the Directors and shareholders, an application was filed on 29.8.2000 by all the four Directors before the Registrar of Companies to strike off the name of the Company. Subsequently some of the Directors decided to continue the functioning of the Company and also filed an application on 18.12.2000 before the Registrar of Companies for changing the name of the company to Gautam Buddha Hospital and Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. which after following due procedure was allowed by order dated 13.2.2001. The company has been continuing in operation continuously as per the submissions on behalf of the petitioner-company. In support of the same the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company from the financial year ending on 31.3.2003 to the financial year ending on 31.3.2008 have also been filed. It is, however, admitted that due to differences among the Directors and for other inadvertent reasons the statutory returns, etc. could not be filed before the Registrar of Companies. It is pointed out that the company has engaged renowned Doctors of the locality, who are specialized in the faculty for providing services to the Hospital on remuneration and has also employed technical and other staffs for the Hospital.

4. Learned counsel refers to the audited balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of the company to show that the company has been continuously carrying on its business activity and is not a defunct company. It is also pointed out that regular transactions have also been carried out with the Bank, for which the accout statement from the Bank has also been annexed.

5. However, the Registrar of Companies in exercise of power under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act struck off the original name of the petitioner-company mentioning the correct registration number, which the petitioner subsequently learnt, by the aforesaid Gazette Notification. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has approached this Court for restoration of its name in the Register of Companies.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the company was continuously functional and carrying on its activity, which is evident from the audited balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of the company as well as the statement of account of the Bank, but the name has been wrongly struck off without following the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 560 of the Companies Act. It is contended that no notice at all was issued to the petitioner-company before its name was struck off as required under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is further urged that the Registrar of Companies has struck off the name only on the directive of the Government of India, which as a statutory authority shows complete non- appliction of his independent mind and thus his action is vitiated on the said ground also. Thus, striking off the name of the company from the Register of the Companies is non est and fit to be set aside.

7. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter when the company is carrying on its operation continuously since its establishment, for the sole reason that the statutory returns were not submitted in time, the name of the company could not have been struck off, as there are other provisions for non-compliance of such requirements of the Com