The court has the authority to direct the restoration of a company's name in the register of companies, subject to compliance with the rules and payment of additional fees.

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking directions to the respondent (Registrar of Companies) to restore its name to the register of the companies. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follow:

Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be one of its directors. Petitioner No. 1 company was incorporated on 18-11 -1992 and was got registered with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana vide registration certificate No. 55-51015. Petitioner No. 1 company was incorporated with the main object of importing, exporting, selling, buying etc. of handicrafts, handloom materials, jewellary of all kinds etc. The authorized share-capital of petitioner No. 1 company was Rs. 1 lakh divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of petitioner No. 1 company was Rs. 2,000 divided into 200 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. Due to recession in the market and on account of huge loss suffered by petitioner No. 1 company from 2000 up to the year 2003, the then management of petitioner No. 1 company decided to file an application under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 with Registrar of Companies to strike off its name from the register of the companies. Before the request of petitioner No. 1 company to strike off its name from the register of the company was examined and decision taken thereon by the Registrar of Companies, change took place in the management of the said company and pursuant to the said change and considering the business prospects, the new management of petitioner No. 1 company in its meeting held on 25-8-2006 decided to seek approval of this Court for revival of petitioner No. 1 company. The decision taken by the new management/Board of Directors in its meeting held on 25-8-2006 was also communicated to the Registrar of Companies vide communication dated 27-9-2006. However, in the meanwhile, the name of petitioner No. 1 company was struck off from the register of the companies maintained in the office of the Registrar of Companies on 28-10-2006.

2. Petitioner No. 1 company now seeks restoration of its name on the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. Notice of this petition was issued to the Registrar of Companies and in response to that notice, Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate is present on behalf of the Registrar of Companies. Mr. Malik appearing on behalf of the respondent says that he has instructions from his client to state that the Registrar of Companies has no objection to the restoration of the name of petitioner No. 1 company to the register of companies subject to payment of additional fee to be levied by the Registrar of Companies for permitting petitioner No. 1 company to file statutory returns for the period in default as per rules.

3. Accordingly, the Registrar of Companies is directed to restore the name of the petitioner company in the Register of Companies maintained with it subject to payment of such additional fee by the petitioner company as may be levied by the Registrar of Companies for the purpose in accordance with rules.