Judgment:
ORDER
Shantanu Kemkar, J.
1. Through this Company Petition filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), read with Rules 92 to 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the Rules'), the petitioner-company is seeking a direction to the respondent, Registrar of Companies, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh to restore its name in the register of the Companies and for passing other incidental and consequential orders and directions including the direction for restoration of rights and liabilities of petitioner-company from the date of 'striking off' its name as if the name of the Company was never struck off from the register of the Companies.
2. This Court had issued a notice to the respondent-Registrar of the Companies but in spite of said notice being served, no one has appeared for the respondent-Registrar to oppose the prayer made in this petition.
3. Briefly stated, petitioner-company was incorporated on 5-8-1994 under the provisions of the Act as a Company limited by shares. The main objects of the company for which it was incorporated were to carry on the business of Growers, agriculturist, producers, processors, manufacturers, importers, exporters, traders, dealers, packers, stockists, agents of wheat, gram, pulses and other agricultural produce and crushing, extracting cakes from the seeds. And acquire, promote, establish and carry on business on manufacturers, importers, exporters, traders, dealers and processing of agro based product of high protein, protein-concentrates protein-isolates, lectithin glycerine, emulsifires oil, deoiled cakes, refined oil, (Vanaspati), margarine, refined oil, from or out of cotton seeds, castor, linseeds, sunflower, soyabean, ricebran, groundnut and other types of edible and non-edible essential and non-essential, oil seeds and ordinary crushing, solvent extraction or any other process and utilise the oils and cakes proteins to be produced therefrom. And to carry on the business as manufacturers, processors, importers, exporters, traders, packers and to treat, process, purchase, sell market, repack or otherwise deal in horticulture, vegetable, fruit and fruit products and food processing and to carry on the business of farmers, dairymen, milk contractor, dairy farmers and fruit juices and essences, vegetable juices and essences and drinks thereof, milk products, condensed milk powder, milk cream, cheese, butter, oil and all types of flowers, flower products and essences.
4. It has been averred by the petitioner in the petition that authorized share capital of the company as on the date of the petition is Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) divided into 1,000 (One thousand) equity shares of Rs. 100 (One hundred) each. It has also been averred that petitioner-company started its commercial activities and is in operation as per the latest Audited Balance sheet of the Company and its Cash Balance.
5. According to the petitioner in the month of October, 2008, when the petitioner-company approached the Portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, for filing Annual Accounts, the Annual Returns and other documents as per the Act, it came to know that status of the company as per company master details available on the web site of the Ministry, is shown as 'struck off'.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that there are no creditors in the petitioner company and is in operation as per audited balance sheet as on 31 -3-2006, 31-3-2007 and 31-3-2008. It is averred that Directors who are also the shareholders are holding the shares in the paid-up capital of the company. According to the promoter directors of the petitioner-company, it is appropriate time to start the full-fledged business operation of the company. It is stated that is having cash balance for its business operations and the promoters are in a position to infuse the required funds. It has also been stated that the company can be profitably run by the promoter directors and is in a position to enhance the net worth of the shareholders out of its profits.
7. It is also the case of the petitioner that no person is going to be prejudiced if the name of the petitioner-company is restored in the register of the companies as maintained by the respondent-Registrar. On the contrary, it is stated that shareholder of the company would financially suffer on account of loss of their investment and also loss of future profit if name of the company is not restored in the register of the companies.
8. Having considered the averments made by the petitioner in the petition and also the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the provisions of Section 560(6) of the Act, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for restoration of its name in the register of the companies.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The name of petitioner-company is directed to be restored by the respondent in the register of companies treating as if its name was never been struck off from the rolls of the register. The petitioner shall deliver the copy of this order to the respondent-Registrar within the time fixed under rule 93 of the Rules. The Registrar, thereafter, shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the Act and Rules. The petitioner shall comply the requirements as provided under the Act and Rules. No order as to costs.