Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 08.2.2012 wherein the application filed by him (Company Application No.2103/2011) under order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) seeking impleadment in the proceedings pending under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) had been dismissed.

2. Record shows that the company M/s Value Advisory Services Private Ltd.

(VAS- hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) was struck off from the Register of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 29.12.2006 which was pursuant to a Simplified Exist Scheme, 2003; it was on the application made by the company itself.

3. The appellant before this Court is M/s ZTE Corporation (a company based in China). The appellant and the company had entered into a consultancy agreement dated 01.01.2003; disputes arose between the parties which disputes were referred to arbitration in Singapore. Certain interim directions were passed in those arbitral proceedings. The company obtained a partial Award and its favour on 09.11.2009; final Award was passed on 23.7.2010 which, we have been informed, is of one million dollars exclusive of interest. These Awards had been passed in favour of the company and against the appellant. Execution petition No.334/2010 was filed by the company seeking execution of both the partial Award and the final Award. Objections were filed by the appellant in this execution petition; primary objection taken by the appellant was that the company was non-existent on the date of the passing of the Award; as such the Award is a nullity. The company having been struck off from the Register of the ROC on 29.12.2006 which fact came to the light and to the knowledge of the appellant much later i.e. sometime in January, 2007.

4. Record further shows that C.P. No.200/2011 was filed on 20.4.2011 by two petitioners Sidhant Garg and another. This petition under Section 560(6) of the said Act sought restoration of the respondent company in the Register maintained by the ROC. In this petition, it has been averred that the petitioners are creditors of the company and their outstanding salaries amounting to Rs.6,54,000/- have to be paid to them by the company; to support their submission the balance sheet of the company for the year 2000 had been filed. The company was served and was represented through counsel. The company did not dispute its liability towards the creditors and in fact admitted that as per the last balance sheet of the company an amount of Rs.10,94,665.21 were the current liabilities of the company which included the dues of the two petitioners. This balance sheet is a part of the record. Company Application No.2103/2011 had been filed in these proceedings on 17.8.2011 seeking impleadment. Learned single Judge had answered the arguments of the appellant; presumably his locus standi to advance arguments had been accepted; his submissions had, however, been negatived. The impugned order had restored the name of the company. This was after a report had been obtained from the ROC.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 560(6) of the said Act it is only a bona fide and a genuine creditor who can seek restoration of the company; it cannot be an exercise of mala fides which was so in the instant case. Submission being that the present petition had been filed as a collusive petition between the alleged two creditors and the company wherein company chose not to oppose the petition only for an ulterior purpose. Ulterior purpose being that after the restoration of the company, it would be in a position to execute the Award against the appellant which Award had been obtained by playing a fraud upon the Court as the company did not intentionally and deliberately disclose before the Arbitral Tribunal that the name of the company had already been struck off from the ROC on 29.12.2006 and the