MACE PLASTRONICS PVT LTD Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S.560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeks restoration of the name of the petitioner company to the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. M/s Mace Plastronics Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 19th June, 1985 vide Certificate of Incorporation No. 21262 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 petitioner's name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file annual returns and balance sheets in respect of the financial years 1999-2000 to 2006-2007. Consequently, the respondent initiated proceedings under S.560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of striking the petitioner's name off the Register maintained by the respondent. It is stated that the procedure prescribed under S.560 of the Companies Act, 1956 was followed, notices as required under S.560(1), S.560(2), S.560(3) and, ultimately, under S.560(5) were issued, and that the name of the petitioner company was published in the Official Gazette on 23rd June, 2007 at S.No. 2286. However, the name that appeared in the Official Gazette at the aforesaid serial number is "Mage Plastronics Pvt. Ltd.". To clarify this position, counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner's name in the respondent?s electronic records was erroneously recorded as "Mage Plastronics Pvt. Ltd.", and therefore, the same name was also published in the Official Gazette. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that, however, the petitioner?s name in the respondent's physical records is correct.

(3.) The petitioner alleged that it did not receive any show cause notice, nor was it afforded any opportunity of being heard before the aforesaid action was taken by the respondent. On examination, it appears that the address of the petitioner's registered office in the records of the respondent is correct. It is therefore presumed that the petitioner was duly served with the notices issued under S.560 by the respondent.