The central legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of the management for ensuring statutory compliances and the conditions for restoration of a company's name in the register under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by PPI Enterprises Private Limited (hereinafter known as the “petitioner”) under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 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 12.03.1982 vide Certificate of Incorporation No. 55-013281with the object of carrying on the business, inter alia, of electrical appliances and equipments. Presently, the registered office of the petitioner is stated to be situated at C-39, Flatted Complex, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- 110055.

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 30.09.2001 to 30.09.2014, and Balance Sheets from 31.03.2001 to 30.03.2014. 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 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 Gazetteon 23.06.2007 mentioning the petitioner-company’s name at Serial no.1729.

4. The petitioner has, on the other hand, submitted that it has been functioning and carrying on business since its incorporation, and prepared annual accounts and audited the same every year. In support of this statement, the petitioner has relied on its annual accounts for the period 30.03.2002 to 31.03.2013, Balance Sheets with Schedule of fixed assets of the company and profit and loss account for the financial years ending 31.03.2002 to 31.03.2013, copies of all of which are 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. The petitioner also averred that upon inspection of official records of the petitioner-company carried out by its authorised representative, no documents pertaining to S.560 were found. It is further averred that no documents evidencing the basis on which the respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner-company was not carrying on its business was either provided to the petitioner or was available on the records maintained with the respondent.

6. It has been averred on behalf of the respondent that though the notices/letters under S.560(1) and (3) were sent, their copies and dispatch proof are not traceable. On examination of annexures, it appears that the address of the registered office of the petitioner in the records of the respondent is incorrect. However, the petitioner has not placed on record any proof of intimation of the change of the address of its registered office, to the respondent. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the respondent had sent notices under S.560 to the petitioner on the old address of its registered office and the same may not have been received by the petitioner.

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. This fact is not denied by the respondent.

8. The petitioner avers that the accounts of the company were prepared and audited every year, and the same is reflected by the annexures attached to the petition. The petitioner-company had engaged the services of a Chartered Accountant to perform the task of filing the statutory documents with the office of the responden