The restoration of a company's name in the register under S.560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 is necessary in the interests of justice, and the primary responsibility for statutory compliances lies with the management.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by Gauran Properties Private Limited (hereinafter known as the Petitioner) under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9 and 92 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 praying for restoration of its name in the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies.

2. The petitioner was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana (hereinafter called “the respondent”) as a company limited by shares on 25.07.1991 vide Certificate of Incorporation No. 55-45100 with the object of carrying on the business of, inter alia, acquiring and developing lands.

3. The respondent initiated the proceedings under S.560 of the Companies Act, 1956 to strike the name of the petitioner off the register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, non-filing of Annual Returns from 2000 to 2014, and Balance Sheets from 2000 to 2014. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that procedure under S.560 was duly followed, with notices/letter as required under S.560(1) and S.560(3) sent at the address available with the registrar as the registered office address of the petitioner. It is further submitted that notice dated 31.05.2007 under Section 560(5) for striking off the name of the petitioner from the register maintained by the respondent was given and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 23.06.2007.

4. The petitioner has, on the other hand, submitted that it had not engaged in any business since its incorporation. However, the company had acquired property bearing No. C-577, Defence Colony, New Delhi vide a registered sale deed dated 06.04.1993. Further, the petitioner submits that it had filed its returns till the year 2000 through its directors. The petitioner also averred that the petitioner company was a closely held family concern and affairs of the company were being handled solely by one Mr. DharamDutt, who passed away on 23.11.2008. It is also stated that due to ill health and old age, he was unable to attend to the affairs of the company from the year 2000 till his demise in the year 2008. In support of this statement, the petitioner has relied on its annual returns dated 24.09.1999, copy of which is annexed with the petition.

5. It is further stated by the petitioner that it did not receive any notices/letters/show-cause notices as required under Section 560(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, nor was it afforded any opportunity of being heard before action under S.560(5) was taken by the respondent.

It is also averred that the petitioner came to know that its name had been struck off from the register of companies in April, 2015. In this context, it is also averred that the registered office address of the company available with the respondent was 1748/55 – Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

6. It has been averred on behalf of the respondent that though the notices/letters under S.560(1) and (3) were sent at the office address of the petitioner as available in the records of the respondent, however their copies and dispatch proof are not traceable.

7. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is within the period of limitation stipulated by S. 560(6) of Companies Act, 1956.

8. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has no objection to the restoration of the petitioner company’s name under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, subject to the petitioner filing all statutory documents, i.e. annual returns from 2002 to 2014 and balance sheets as at 2002 to 2014, and other requisite documents along with filing fee and additional fee, as applicable on the date of actual filing. The certificates of ‘No Objection’ of the directors and 80.02% of the shareholders, to the restoration of the name of the company to the Register maintained by the respondent, have also been placed on record.

9. In Purushottamdass and Anr. (Bulakidas Mohta Co. P. Ltd.) v. Reg