Judgment :- 1. This petition has been filed under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 for the restoration of the name of the petitioner company, which was struck off from the Register of Companies with effect from 13.09.2000. 2. Taking note of the fact that while a large number of companies had been registered, but due to various reasons some of them had failed to take off and the promoters of such companies had been requesting the Government to strike off the name of such companies by adopting an easy to follow method in a time bound manner, the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs thought it fit to launch a Fast Track Scheme enabling such non-starter companies and also the other companies, who want to exit the corporate form of business, without going through the protracted process of voluntary winding up, by getting their names removed from the Register of Companies by submitting the prescribed form with requisite fee. The scheme was put in operation for a limited period of sixty days. The petitioner company wanted to avail the benefit conferred under the Scheme and accordingly, it approached for its name being struck off by submitting necessary forms. Based on the same, the name of the petitioner company was struck off from the Register of Companies with effect from 13.09.2000. 3. After a lapse of nearly 12 years, the petitioner company has come forward with the present petition under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 for the restoration of its name to the Register of Companies on the ground that though the name of the company was struck off, all along the company was doing business and regular meetings contemplated under the statute were held and that the application for restoration of the name has been filed within 20 years, the period prescribed in sub section (6) of section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. I have heard the arguments made by Ms.Rajeni Ramadass, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.O.V.Krishnan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent. This court also perused the petition and connected materials on record. 5. 4. I have heard the arguments made by Ms.Rajeni Ramadass, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.O.V.Krishnan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent. This court also perused the petition and connected materials on record. 5. Of course it is true that section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 provides for the restoration of the name of the company, which has been removed from the Register of Companies under sub section (5) of section 560, if an application for the restoration of the name of the company to the Register of Companies is made by a company or any member or creditor thereof and if such an applicant feels aggrieved by the removal of the name of the company from the Register. The said provision is intended for benefitting the company, any member of the company or a creditor of the company, if the company or the member or the creditor thereof, as the case may be, who applies for the restoration, feels aggrieved by the removal of the name of the company from the Register. 6. The scheme under which the petitioner company got its name removed from the Register of Companies was intended to enable the companies, who did not take off after incorporation and the companies that wanted to exit the corporate form of business without undergoing the protracted process of voluntary winding up. The fact of such removal of the name of the company, who volunteered for the removal of its name from the register, under the above said scheme, shall have the effect of causing dissolution of the company without undergoing the process of winding up. It shall have the effect of putting an end to the juristic personality of corporate entity. The present company petition has been filed by the company, which volunteered to have its name struck off from the Register of Companies. When such is the case, the company cannot be heard to say that the company is aggrieved by the striking off of the name of the company from the Register of Companies. 7. Sub section (6) of Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides for restoration of the name of the company on a petition being presented by the company or a member or a creditor thereof, if such petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Registrar removing the name of the company from the Register. 7. Sub section (6) of Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides for restoration of the name of the company on a petition being presented by the company or a member or a creditor thereof, if such petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Registrar removing the name of the company from the Register. The company, having volunteered for the removal of its name from the Register, cannot be said to be an aggrieved person for seeking restoration of its name to the Register of Companies. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to show any clause in the Scheme providing an option for a company, which got its name struck off from the Register of Companies availing the scheme, to get its name restored to the Register under Sub section (6) of Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. The benefit of sub section (6) of section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 for getting the name of the company restored to the Register of Companies after having been struck off from the Register of companies as a penal measure, shall not be available to a company, who has volunteered for the removal of its name from the Register of Companies under the Scheme floated in 2000. Hence this court comes to the conclusion that the present company petition under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 by the petitioner company deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the company petition is dismissed.