The name of the petitioner company was struck off from the register of companies. The petitioner in this regard alleged that due procedure has not been followed by the Registrar inasmuch as no notices/ letters were received by the petitioner and no hearing was afforded to them, as mandated under Section 560 of Companies Act, 1956. It was submitted by the petitioner that it was fully functional and due to certain unavoidable circumstances, there was delay in complying with the statutory requirements of annual fillings.
During the course of proceeding, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the reason why notices/ letters had not been received by the petitioner, as was required under Section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, was on account of the records of Registrar containing incorrect particulars in relation to the registered address of the petitioner. Noting that the petitioner [Ascot Shoes Pvt. Ltd. ] had not applied for a change of registered address because of which the notices could not be duly served upon it, the Delhi High Court ordered restoration of the name in the list. The Court in this regard on 29-7-2016 has relied on a Bombay High Court decision in the case of Purushottamdass and Anr. v. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, (1986) 60 Comp Cas 154 (Bom), and agreed that, the “object of section 560(6) of the Companies Act is to give a chance to the company, its members and creditors to revive the company which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies… “. It also noted that in the instant matter, the petitioner approached the Court within the limitation period and thus the law in Purushottamdas was applicable. Further, observing that the petitioner was not filing the statutory returns for the past 14 years, liberty was granted to the Registrar to take penal action against the petitioner under Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956.