Judgment :- GOVARDHAN J. In this application, the petitioners contend that the shareholders of the company in liquidation have decided unanimously at the meeting of the shareholders to revive the company and permission is sought for from the court to revive the company. The Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Southern Region, in his report has stated that the company was ordered to be wound up by order dated September 16, 1960, and the official liquidator attached to the High Court became the liquidator of the company and he has taken control and custody of all the assets and realised all of them except an investment of 76, 000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each in Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. It is also reported by the Regional Director that the official liquidator has settled the claims of the creditors of the company in full and as per the orders of this court in C. A. No. 1038 of 1989 and he has returned the capital to the contri butories in full except the shares which are in listed companies and which can be sold easily being no assets of the company and, therefore, there is no necessity for reconstruction or revival of the company. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, would argue that the objection of the Regional Director for revival of the company is very strange and objectionable since the decision of the shareholders to revive the company is unanimous and, therefore, the objection raised by the Regional Director should be rejected and necessary permission may be, granted to the company for the revival of the same. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Regional Director would argue that the company has been in liquidation for the past 35 years, and the creditors' claims have been settled by the liquidator and the present attempt of the shareholders of the company to revive the company is not only opposed to public policy but is also barred by limitation both under the Limitation Act and under the Companies Act and, therefore, it has to be rejected. The efforts of the shareholders of the company in liquidation to revive the same cannot be said to be opposed to public policy only on account of the delay in their attempt. The efforts of the shareholders of the company in liquidation to revive the same cannot be said to be opposed to public policy only on account of the delay in their attempt. A scheme for restarting a company under winding up can be sanctioned by the company court, if it has been approved by the necessary majority and the company has surplus assets after paying all the creditors and repaying the shareholders, the face value of their shareholding. In the present case, revival of the company has been approved by the shareholders in their unanimous resolution. The creditors have been repaid. In view of the fact that the shares are available on account of their investment in Thiru Arooran Sugar Mills the shareholders could be paid more than the face value of their shareholdings. If the revival had been sought within the stipulated time, a stigma on the company would have been removed by such revival. Therefore, the contention of the Regional Director that it is opposed to public policy is not a tenable one in my opinion.Even though I am of the opinion that the revival of a company in liquidation by an unanimous resolution of the shareholders of the company cannot be considered to be opposed to public policy, the objection taken by the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, on the question of limitation, is, in my opinion, well-founded. As per article 100 of the Limitation Act, the period stipulated under the limitation Act to alter or set aside any decision or order of a civil court in any proceeding other than a suit or any act or order of an officer of a Government in his official capacity is one year from the date of the final decision or the order by the court. Therefore, the present attempt of the shareholders of the company to revive the company which has been ordered to be liquidated by an order of this court, after 35 years, is certainly barred by limitation. As per section 559 of the Companies Act, the court can declare the dissolution of a company as a void one on an application by the liquidator of the company or by any other person who appears to the court to be interested, if an application for the same is filed within two years of the date of the dissolution. As per section 559 of the Companies Act, the court can declare the dissolution of a company as a void one on an application by the liquidator of the company or by any other person who appears to the court to be interested, if an application for the same is filed within two years of the date of the dissolution. As per section 560, clause (6) of the Companies Act, if any member or creditor of a company, or even if the company feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, the court, on an application made by any of them before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette, if satisfied that it is just that the company be restored to the register, order the restoration of the same. The period for restoration of the name of the company in the register as per section 559 being two years and as per section 560, clause (6) being 20 years, the present attempt of the shareholders of the company to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies is also barred by limitation.Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, would argue that the Regional Director has not taken the plea of bar by period of limitation as one of the grounds for the revival of the company in his report and, therefore, the argument of learned standing counsel for Company Affairs on this ground has to be rejected. I am of the opinion that the objection to the revival of the company taken by the Regional Director being a question of law, it can be raised at any time and it cannot be rejected on the ground that it has not been raised in the report filed by the Regional Director. Considering these aspects, I am of the opinion that the permis sion sought for by the applicant for revival of the company cannot be granted. In the result, the permission sought for by the applicant-company, for revival of the same is not granted.