Sudershan Kumar Misra, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of the name of the petitioner company to the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. M/s Anuvind Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 2nd November, 1992 vide Certificate of Incorporation No. 55 -50826 as a private limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana.
(2.) THE Registrar of Companies, i.e. the respondent herein, struck the company's name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file returns and balance sheets for the financial years 2000 -01 to 2005 -06. Consequently, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of striking the name of the petitioner off the Register maintained by his office. It is stated by Counsel for the respondent that the procedure prescribed under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 was followed, notices as required under Section 560(1), Section 560(2), Section 560(3) and, ultimately, under Section 560(5) were issued, and that the name of the petitioner company was published in the Official Gazette on 23rd June, 2007 at Section No. 1680. It is the petitioner's case that it received only the notice issued by the respondent under Section 560(3), and none of the other notices allegedly sent by the respondent. A copy of this notice dated 26th February, 2007, which was admittedly received by the petitioner has been annexed to the petition. On examination, it appears that the aforesaid notice specifically mentions the previous notices issued by the respondent under Section 560(1) and Section 560(2). The address of the petitioner's registered office, as stated in the petition, is identical to its address in the records of the respondent. Therefore, to my mind, there is no reason to believe that all these notices were not duly served. The petitioner is deemed to have been served with all the notices issued by the respondent before the latter struck the petitioner's name off the Register.
(3.) THE petitioner, however, responded only to the respondent's notice dated 26th February, 2007 via its reply dated 15th May, 2007, wherein it stated that it had not received any of the respondent's previous notices under Section 560(1) or Section 560(2), and that it was regularly filing income tax returns even though it had not yet commenced business. It was further stated that the requisite statutory documents had not been filed with the respondent due to an oversight. An undertaking was also given by the petitioner, to the effect that it would file the appropriate documents by the end of May 2007.;