Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) NOTICES were issued to the respondent who is now represented by his counsel. Matter has come up on application filed by the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959. However, with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the application as well as the petition has been heard finally and both are being disposed off by the present order.
(2.) INSTANT petition has been filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 for restoration of the name of the company which at one stage was struck off by the Registrar of Companies after complying with the statutory requirement provided under Sub -sections (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Act. It has been averred in the present petition that the notices if any issued by the Registrar of Companies under sub -sections (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Act were never served upon the company, in absence whereof, decision taken by the Registrar of Companies for striking off the name of the company exercising power under Sub -section (5) of Section 560 of the Act is wholly arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled to get the name of the company restored. However, no reply of the present petition has been filed but the Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is a legal requirement for every company to submit their annul returns under Section 159 of the Act and indisputably the present company, petitioner herein, failed to furnish their annul returns for almost five preceding years and thus Registrar of Companies has reason to believe that company is not running its business nor in operation and only after making compliance of sub -sections (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Act and when no reasonable cause came forward justifying as to why annual returns were not submitted which is the statutory requirement under law, decision was taken by the Registrar of Companies to struck off the name of the company and being duly published in the official gazette as well. Counsel for respondent further submits that there is no reasonable cause shown by the petitioner in the present petition but at the same time they have no objection in restoring the name of the company as prayed for but at least cost may be imposed in regard to the expenses being incurred by the Registrar of Companies in initiating actions for making compliance of statutory requirement.
(3.) THIS Court has heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.;