AMIT PABUWAL Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(3.) THIS Court has heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.