The central legal point established is the court's authority to restore the name of a company in the Register of Companies under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, based on the company's operational status and the interest of justice.

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

1. This company petition has been filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") read with Rule 92 to Rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking direction to the respondent Registrar of Companies, MP and Chhattisgarh to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies and consequential directions for restoration of rights and liabilities of company from the date of striking off till the date of restoration of the name of the company as if the name of the company was never "struck off" from the Register of Companies.

2. On January 13, 2010, notice of this company petition was issued to the respondent. Though the notice of the petition has been served on the respondent the Registrar of Companies but neither any reply has been filed nor anyone has appeared on behalf of the respondent Registrar of Companies to oppose the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition.

3. Briefly stated the company M/s. Animesh Poly Industries P. Ltd., was incorporated on May 3, 1985, under the provisions of the Act as a company limited by shares. The objects of the company set forth in the memorandum of association have been stated in paragraphs 3(1) and 3(2) of the petition. It has also been stated that the authorised share capital of the company as on the date of filing of the petition is Rs. 20,00,000 divided into 20,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each and the subscribed, issued and paid-up capital of the company is Rs. 1,02,200 divided into 1,022 equity shares of Rs. 100. The petitioner has filed copy of the audited annual accounts for the financial year ended on March 31, 2009, showing capital structure of the petitioner-company as annexure P3. An averment has been made by the petitioner that the company though has not started any commercial activity however was in operation. It has been stated that the commercial activities will be started shortly after restoration of its name in the Register of Companies. It has been stated that as per the latest audited balance-sheet of the company has unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,000 for business purposes and has cash balance of Rs. 1,86,627 and Rs. 447 are in the bank. It has also been stated that there are no secured creditors in the petitioner-company.

4. According to the petitioner it is a going concern and is in operation. An averment has been made that during the month of October, 2009, when the company approached portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for filing the documents as per the Act for the subsequent years it came to know that as per the company master details available on the website of the Ministry the status of the company for electronic filing was showing as "strike off".

5. The case of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 560(6) of the Act was ever served upon the petitioner-company so as to enquire as to whether the company is operational or not. It has been stated that the petitioner-company is a closely held family owned company and the meetings of the board of directors of the company are regularly taking place. The meetings of the shareholders of the company are also taking place regularly as required under the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the promoter directors of the petitioner-company have not closed down the business activity of the company and have proposed to start its operation immediately after restoration of its name. It has been stated that the company can be profitably operated by the promoter directors of the company and shall ultimately enhance the net worth of the shareholders out of its profits. It is also the case of the petitioner that presently there are favourable circumstances under which the business activities of the company can be restarted.

6. Having considered the averments made in the petition and the arguments put forth by learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the matter and having gone through the provisions contained in Section of