JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. 1. In present petition under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "17A. Your lordships may be pleased to restore Rakshak Cargo Movers (P.) Ltd. to the register of companies maintained in the office of Registrar of Companies under the provisions of section 560(6) of the Act, in the interest of justice and equity;...." From various averments in the petition it becomes clear that the petition has been taken out under the provisions of section 560(6) of the Act and the petitioner is also conscious of the said aspect which is evident from the fact that even in the prayer clause, i.e., in paragraph No. 17(A) as well as in paragraph No. 16 of the application, the applicant has made it clear that the petition is taken-out under section 560 of the Act. In paragraph No. 11 of the petition, the petitioner has even quoted the said provision. Therefore, the petition has to be considered in light of and within the purview and scope of section 560(6) of the Act. 2. The petitioner has prayed that direction to restore the company on the register of companies may be passed. 2.1 The company whose name is stuck-off is a private limited company. 2.2 It is pertinent that until the last date (i.e., when the company came to be struck-off) the company was which can be described as only Rs. 400 company inasmuch as its paid-up share capital was only Rs. 400 and all there ex-directors are family members. This aspect is evident from the details mentioned in paragraph No. 3 and paragraph No. 5 of the petition, which read, thus: "3. The petitioner submits that the company was incorporated on 24th July, 1996 and was accordingly registered with the office of the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat under the provisions of the Act. The company had three subscribers, viz., (1) The petitioner, (2) Smt. Seema Sharma, and (3) Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma. 5. The petitioner submits that as per the provision of section 3(1)(iii) of the Act, in case of a private company, the company should have at least a minimum paid-up capital of Rs. 1,00,000. However, in the case of the present petitioner, the paid up capital of the company was not enhanced and it continued to be Rs. 5. The petitioner submits that as per the provision of section 3(1)(iii) of the Act, in case of a private company, the company should have at least a minimum paid-up capital of Rs. 1,00,000. However, in the case of the present petitioner, the paid up capital of the company was not enhanced and it continued to be Rs. 400 till the time it was struck off from the register by the Registrar of Companies." Moreover, the petition is according to the petition and in petitioner's words filed through Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma who is director of the company and is also a subscriber to its memorandum of association. 3. So as to consider and appreciate the request made by the petitioner, it is relevant and necessary to consider certain factual aspects which are mentioned by the petitioner. In present petition the petitioner has stated, inter alia, that: "2. The petitioner respectfully submits that the petition is filed through Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, who is the director of the company and is also the subscriber to its memorandum of association. The petitioner was one of the shareholders of the company all throughout. The petitioner also came to be appointed as director of the company. The petitioner submits that the other shareholders of the company are Smt. Seema Sharma and Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma. 3. The petitioner submits that the company was incorporated on 24th July, 1996 and was accordingly registered with the office of the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat under the provisions of the Act. The company had three subscribers, viz., (1) The petitioner, (2) Smt. Seema Sharma, and (3) Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma. 4. The petitioner submits that as per the provisions of section 41 of the Act, the subscribers to the memorandum of association are the initial members of the company. The subscriber clause provided for subscription of 100 shares of Re. 1 each by all the three subscribers. Thereafter, Mr. Pradeepkumar Sharma also applied for 100 shares and was allotted 100 shares. 5. The petitioner submits that as per the provision of section 3(1)(iii) of the Act, in case of a private company, the company should have at least a minimum paid-up capital of Rs. 1,00,000. However, in the case of the present petitioner, the paid up capital of the company was not enhanced and it continued to be Rs. 5. The petitioner submits that as per the provision of section 3(1)(iii) of the Act, in case of a private company, the company should have at least a minimum paid-up capital of Rs. 1,00,000. However, in the case of the present petitioner, the paid up capital of the company was not enhanced and it continued to be Rs. 400 till the time it was struck off from the register by the Registrar of Companies. 6. The petitioner submits that after the incorporation of the company by the petitioner and others, the company did well for some time and thereafter, the business fell and the company was not in a position to get more business for sustaining despite numerous efforts put by all the directors and hence, the company was not in a position to file its returns, etc., with the office of the RoC since 2006 and the company decided to take benefit of the Easy Exit Scheme of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs during the year 2011 and applied for being struck off. Accordingly, the company was struck off during the year 2011, after following the due procedure. 7. The petitioner submits that recently, the petitioner has received various offers for doing business and also, the petitioner has been able to arrange funds to raise the minimum paid-up capital of the company to Rs. 1 lakh. It is submitted that offers received by the petitioner will ensure a smooth and continuous business available to the company and if revived, in all likelihood, the company will flourish and grow. 9. It is submitted that upon the revival of the company, the company shall be in a position to provide employment to drivers, cleaners and other sub-staff. It is submitted that apart from having a bright future for itself, the company will be in a position to provide employment and thereby contribute to the society as such. 4. In the said factual background the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the circumstances which prevailed at the relevant time the company had applied under the Easy Exit Scheme pursuant to which the RoC struck-off the company from the register but now the circumstances have changed and that, therefore, the petitioner wants that the Registrar may be directed to restore the company on the register. He also submitted that the petition is preferred within the time limit prescribed under the said section 560(6) of the Act. Any other submission is not made, however, Mr. N.L. Jain, learned advocate for petitioner has sought to rely upon the decision in case of VI Brij Fiscal Services (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [2010] 155 Comp Cas 157 : [2010] 100 SCL 370 (MP). He also relied on the decision by Delhi High Court in case between Siddhant Garg v. RoC [2012] 112 SCL 99/18 taxmann.com 312 as well as on the decision of Karnataka High Court in case between Mukambika Agricultural Estates v. RoC (decision dated 8th February, 2013 in Company Petition No. 260 of 2012) and another decision by High Court of Karnataka in case between Pace Holding Ltd. v. RoC (decision dated 12th March, 2012 in Company Petition No. 67 of 2011). 5. I have heard Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and I have also considered the documents placed on record and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. From the facts stated by the petitioner one important fact emerges and becomes clear, viz., it was the company itself who had, on its own motion and to take benefit of the scheme more particularly the benefit of easy and quick exit without passing through the regular and detailed procedure-voluntarily made an application under a scheme launched by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and requested the RoC that it may be struck-off from the register in accordance with the terms of the scheme and it was in pursuance of the company's request and at the behest of the company that the RoC struck off the company from the register. 6.1 Another important aspect which emerges from the record is that the application was made by the company under a scheme launched by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the company was not struck-off by the Registrar from the register in ordinary course and not for any reason mentioned in section 560(1) to section 560(5) of the Act. 6.1 Another important aspect which emerges from the record is that the application was made by the company under a scheme launched by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the company was not struck-off by the Registrar from the register in ordinary course and not for any reason mentioned in section 560(1) to section 560(5) of the Act. 6.2 It is pertinent to note that in present case the RoC had not issued any notice and not taken any action and did not pass any order on his own motion but the action was taken at the request of the company and under a special scheme and outside the purview of section 560 of the Act. 6.3 Now, after having voluntarily applied under specially launched scheme and after having voluntarily got itself struck-off from the register, present petition is taken out seeking above quoted relief. 6.4 The scheme is not placed on record. However, it is not disputed even by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said scheme does not offer option/remedy to the company to subsequently, and at any time, make application under section 560(6)of the Act and ask for recalling the action of striking off the company from the register. It is not even urged by the applicant that the scheme provides such option/remedy by way of application under section 560(6) of the Act. Unless any provision under the scheme expressly provide for such application under sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act, remedy by way of an application request under section 560(6) would not be available and so far as the scheme in question is concerned, it is not claimed even by the petitioner that the said scheme contains such express and specific provision. 6.5 Such application would not lie under section 560(6) of the Act, unless the scheme itself specifically provides such remedy whereas in present case, it is not in dispute that the scheme does not provide for and does not permit a company who makes exit under the scheme to subsequently apply for re-entry and restoration by making an application under section 560(6) of the Act. 6.6 It is pertinent that it is not the case of the petitioner that the said scheme itself, as an inbuilt mechanism/provision, provide for reentry or restoration of the company in the register after having made voluntary exit under the provisions of the scheme. 6.6 It is pertinent that it is not the case of the petitioner that the said scheme itself, as an inbuilt mechanism/provision, provide for reentry or restoration of the company in the register after having made voluntary exit under the provisions of the scheme. 6.7 Even if it is assumed that the scheme contains such option and provides for such avenue then also it would be an independent remedy, i.e., the said remedy/said option would be under the scheme, and not under section 560(6) of the Act inasmuch as even according to the petitioner the scheme does not specifically and expressly provide for an option to subsequently make (if the applicant-company so desires) application under section 560(6) of the Act to recall the action and to restore the company to the register. However, if the scheme, outside and de hors the section 560(6) of the Act provides as an inbuilt mechanism such option/remedy then the petitioner can make appropriate application under such provision in the scheme. 6.8 In the aforesaid background and in view of the facts of present case, even if it is assumed, for sake of examining the petitioner's request, that the application and request by the petitioner falls within the purview of sub-section (6) of section 560of the Act then also, the request will have to be tested on the touchstone of the two criterion mentioned in the said sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act, viz., (a) at the time of striking off whether the company was carrying on business or whether it was In operation; and (b) whether it is just to restore the company to the register. 6.9 According to the said provision satisfaction of the court on the aforesaid two counts is necessary for entertaining and accepting the request made by virtue of application under sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act. This is evident from the language of the said sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act, more particularly the expression if satisfied which connotes that the satisfaction of the court would be necessary in considering and deciding the application made under section 560(6) of the Act. The said sub-section also confers discretion on the court, which is evident from the expression it is just that the company be restored. The said sub-section also confers discretion on the court, which is evident from the expression it is just that the company be restored. When the provision confers discretion to the court, the discretion has to be exercised judiciously and upon such judicious exercise of discretion the court should be satisfied that the company be restored. 6.10 In view of the fact that the petitioner has repeatedly asserted in the petition that the petition is taken out under sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act, it has to be treated as an application under said sub-section and has to be considered in light, of the said provision. 6.11 So as to consider the petitioner's request it would be relevant and appropriate to take into account the fact that until the time the company voluntarily made the application and requested that it may be struck-off, the paid up and subscribed capital of the company was only Rs. 400. 6.12 Even according to the petitioner, the provision under the Act requires that the private limited company must have minimum paid up capital of Rs. 1 lakh. As against the said requirement the company's subscribed and paid up capital was only Rs. 400. 6.13 Another relevant fact is that before it came to be stuck-off pursuant at its own request, the company was in existence as a private limited company which had only three directors, viz., Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Smt. Seema Sharma and Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, and all of them appear to be family members. Thus, it was a very closely private limited company. 6.14 Moreover, it is also relevant to note that the petitioner-company itself has admitted in the petition that much before time when the company made the request under the Easy Exit Scheme, it was not carrying business and was actually not in operation. Thus, it was a very closely private limited company. 6.14 Moreover, it is also relevant to note that the petitioner-company itself has admitted in the petition that much before time when the company made the request under the Easy Exit Scheme, it was not carrying business and was actually not in operation. The petitioner has averred in paragraph No. 6 of the petition that: "....[T]he company did well for some time and thereafter, the business fell and the company was not in a position to-get more business for sustaining despite numerous efforts put by all the directors and, hence, the company was not in a position to file its returns, etc., with the office of the Registrar of Companies since 2006 and the company decided to take benefit of the Easy Exit Scheme of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs during the year 2011 and applied for being struck off." 6.15 Thus, since 2006, and particularly when the company made the application in 2011, the company was virtually not in operation and was virtually not carrying on business. Therefore, the first criteria under the said sub-section is not fulfilled. 6.16 Now so far as the exercise of court's discretion is concerned, the sub-section postulates that the court should be satisfied that it would be just to restore the company. From the above referred facts, i.e., in spite of statutory requirement that the paid-up capital of the company should be at least Rs. 1 lakh, the subscribed and paid-up capital of the company was only Rs. 400 and the fact that since long time the company was actually not in operation, and more important fact that except the stipulation by other two family members there is nothing on record to satisfy the court that the company/petitioner has sufficient funds/capital to fulfill even minimum requirement prescribed by the Act, the court, even otherwise, cannot be said that it would be just to restore the company. 7. In order to examine and appreciate the issue which arises in present case, it is relevant and necessary to take into account provision under section 560 of the Act. The said provision read, thus: "560. 7. In order to examine and appreciate the issue which arises in present case, it is relevant and necessary to take into account provision under section 560 of the Act. The said provision read, thus: "560. Power of Registrar to strike defunct company off register.--(1) Where the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe that a company is not carrying-on business or in operation, he shall send to the company by post a letter inquiring whether the company is carrying on business or in operation. (2) If the Registrar does not within out month of sending the letter receive any answer thereto, he shall, within fourteen days after the expiry of the month, send to the company by post a registered letter referring to the first letter, and stating that no answer thereto has been received and that, if an answer is not received to the second letter within one month from the date thereof, a notice will be published in the Official Gazette with a view to striking the name of the company off the register. (3) If the Registrar either receives an answer from the company to the effect that it is not carrying on business or in operation, or does not within one month after sending the second letter receive any answer, he may publish in the Official Gazette; and send to the company by registered post, a notice that, at the expiration of three months from the date of that notice, the name of the company mentioned therein will, unless cause is shown to the contrary, be struck off the register and the company will be dissolved. (4) If, in any case where a company is being wound up, the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe either that no liquidator is acting, or that the affairs of the company have been completely wound up, and any returns required to be made by the liquidator have not been made for a period of six consecutive months, the Registrar shall publish in the Official Gazette and send to the company or the liquidator, if any, a like notice as is provided in sub-section (3). (5) At the expiry of the time mentioned in the notice referred to in sub-section (3) or (4), the Registrar may, unless cause to the contrary is previously shown by the company, strike its name off the register, and shall publish notice thereof in the Official Gazette; and on the publication in the Official Gazette of this notice, the company shall stand dissolved: Provided that- (a) the liability, if any, of every director, manager or other officer who was exercising any power of management, and of every member of the company, shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved; and (b) nothing in this sub-section shall affect the power of the court to wind up a company the name of which has been struck off the register. (6) If a company, or any member or creditor thereof, feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, the Tribunal, on an application made by the company, member or creditor before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice aforesaid, may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of the striking off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise that it is just that the company be restored to the register, order the name of the company to be restored to the register; and the Tribunal may, by the order, give such directions and make such provisions as seem just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off. (7) Upon a certified copy of the order under sub-section (6) being delivered to the Registrar for registration, the company shall be 296 deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been struck off. (8) A letter or notice to be sent under this section to a company may be addressed to the company at its registered office, or if no office has been registered, to the care of some director, manager or other officer of the company, or if there is no director, manager or officer of the company whose name and address are known to the Registrar, may be sent to each of the persons who subscribed the memorandum, addressed to him at the address mentioned in the memorandum. (9) A notice to be sent under this section to a liquidator may be addressed to the liquidator at his last known place of business." (emphasis supplied) 7.1 For the case on hand it is relevant to mention that present petition is preferred by invoking provision under sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act which, inter alia, provides and contemplates that if any action of striking off the company from the register for any reason contemplated under sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 560 particularly sub-section (1) and/or sub-section (4) of section 560 - is taken by the Registrar and if a company or any member or creditor of the company feels aggrieved by such action of Registrar (i.e., the action of striking off the company from the register for any reason/s contemplated under sub-section (1) to sub-section (5) of section 560 of the Act) then the company or its member/s or its creditor/s can make an application under sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act and on an application by the company or member or creditor the court, upon being satisfied that at the time of striking off the company was carrying on business or that it would be just that the company be restored, pass order directing Registrar to restore the company to the register. 7.2 The sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act is part of section 560 as a whole, i.e., section 560(1) to section 560(9) and it is connected and intertwined with all other sub-sections, i.e., sub-section (1) to sub-section (5) and sub-section (7) to (9) and it is not an independent provision. 7.3 In light of the scheme of section 560 of the Act, the words the company having been struck off from the register have to be read in light of sub-sections (1) to (5) and the action of striking off mentioned in sub-section (6) is related to/connected with the action taken by the Registrar under sub-section (3) and/or sub-section (5) of the said section 560 of the Act. The Registrar can take action under sub-sections (3) and (5) for reason/s mentioned in sub-section(s) (1) and/or (4). The Registrar can take action under sub-sections (3) and (5) for reason/s mentioned in sub-section(s) (1) and/or (4). 7.4 Thus, the company or its member or its creditor can make an application seeking restoration of the company on the register if- (a) the Registrar has, on his own motion, taken action of issuing the letter/notice contemplated under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) and/or notice under sub-section (3) of section 560 of the Act; and (b) such letter/notice is issued by the Registrar on his own motion and for any reason mentioned/contemplated under section 560(1) and/or under section 560(4); and (c) after following the procedure under section 560 of the Act the RoC has, on his own motion, struck off the company from the register for any reason or ground mentioned and contemplated under sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 560 of the Act; and (d) if the company fees aggrieved by the action of the RoC. 7.5 However, said provision does not contemplate and does not provide for an application seeking recall of the action (i.e., the striking off action and restoration of the company in the register) when such action is not taken under the sub-sections 560(1) to 560(5) of the Act and/or when such, action is invited, outside the purview of section 560, by the company itself. 7.6 Looking to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that in present case the RoC had, on his own motion, taken the action in question for any reason/s under section 560(1) to (5) of the Act. 8. According to the provision, i.e., section 560(6) of the Act when the action is not taken by RoC on his own motion and for any reason and/or circumstances mentioned under section 560 (1) to (5) of the Act then any application/petition for recalling or setting aside the action whereby the company got struck-off (at its own request) from the register, would not lie under section 560(6). 8.1 Differently put, a request voluntarily made by the company and the action by the Registrar on account of company's voluntary request or RoC's action pursuant to company's application made outside; i.e., made otherwise than under the section560(1) to (5) (e.g., under some scheme) would not fall within the purview of section 560 particularly sub-section (1) and/or sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act and it will not invite applicability of section 560(6) of the Act. Therefore, in present case the request by the petitioner cannot be considered and entertained under section 560(6) of the Act, more so when the scheme, even according to the petitioner does not make provision allowing recall of the order and re-entry or restoration of the company on the register. 8.2 It is also pertinent that the said sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act provides for making an application when the company or the member/s or the creditor/s feel aggrieved by RoC's action of having struck off the company. Therefore, when the company itself had voluntarily and with a view to deriving some benefit made application and had voluntarily requested that it may be struck-off, then, even otherwise, the company and/or its director cannot have any cause for being aggrieved by the ad-invitem action/order (i.e., by the action invited by itself). Moreover the action was not taken for any cause or reason or circumstances mentioned under sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 560 of the Act. Therefore, also the provision under section560(6) of the Act will not be attracted and will not be applicable in present case. 8.3 For the aforesaid reasons, the request made by the petitioner do not attract the provision under section 560(6) of the Act and it cannot be considered and entertained under sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act and the application is not maintainable under sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act. 9. 8.3 For the aforesaid reasons, the request made by the petitioner do not attract the provision under section 560(6) of the Act and it cannot be considered and entertained under sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act and the application is not maintainable under sub-section (6) of section 560 of the Act. 9. So far as the decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner are concerned; on perusal of the decision in case of VI Brij Fiscal Service (P.) Ltd. (supra) it emerges that the issue as to whether the order made by the RoC on the application made by a company under some scheme launched by Ministry of Corporate Affairs can be said to be an order under section 560 of the Act or not, i.e., an order outside or de hors the section 560(1) to 560(5) of the "Act and whether an application for cancelling such order can be made under section 560(6) of the Act or not is not decided in the said decision and therefore said decision does not assist the case of the petitioner. 9.1 So far as the decision in case of Siddhant Garg (supra) is concerned, the said petition was taken out [by the creditor/s of the company (which was struck-off) and not by the same company] under section 560(6) of the Act read with rule 9 of Company Court Rules, 1959 wherein the petitioner prayed for restoration of the respondent company in the register maintained by RoC. It is pertinent that the said petition Was taken out by the creditors of the concerned company and not by the company itself (as are the facts in present case on hand) or through company's director. Moreover, in the said petition the petitioner-creditor also alleged mala fides inasmuch as, it was alleged that the respondent No. 2 company had, with mala fide intention and by mala fide action of the former management of the concerned company, got the name of the concerned respondent No. 2 company struck off from the register of companies under the Simplified Exit Scheme, 2003. In the said case a 3rd company had also appeared as intervener and had alleged that the petitioners have colluded with the respondent No. 2-company. In the said case a 3rd company had also appeared as intervener and had alleged that the petitioners have colluded with the respondent No. 2-company. The Deputy Registrar of the Companies contended that the respondent No. 2-company, i.e., the company had itself made an application for being struck off in light of the said Scheme of 2003. In light of the facts of present case (particularly the fact that in present case it is the company itself who had made application under the scheme and sought cancellation of its name from register and now present petition is preferred through a director of the same company) it is pertinent that while in the cited decision though the company itself had made an application under the scheme but the petition was filed by the creditors which is specifically and expressly provided under section 560(6) of the Act inasmuch as the section 560(6) provides and contemplates, inter alia, that "If a company, or any member or creditor thereof, feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register....."It was in light of such facts that in the cited decision the court did not accept the contention that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the petition". Moreover, in the said decision the court also expressly came to specific conclusion that in the facts of the case it was just to direct restoration of the company on the register. Thus, the facts of the cited decision are materially different from the facts of present case and do not assist the petitioner in supporting the request made in the petition. 9.2 So far as the decision in case of Mukambika Agricultural Estates (supra) is concerned, it is pertinent that in the said decision the court, in particular, referred to and relied on the response/reply submitted by the RoC. The relevant part of the Registrar's reply/response is quoted in paragraph No. 6 of the decision. The said response/reply reads, thus: "6. 9.2 So far as the decision in case of Mukambika Agricultural Estates (supra) is concerned, it is pertinent that in the said decision the court, in particular, referred to and relied on the response/reply submitted by the RoC. The relevant part of the Registrar's reply/response is quoted in paragraph No. 6 of the decision. The said response/reply reads, thus: "6. Per contra, Shri S. Srinivas, learned Central Government standing counsel, reiterating the contentions urged in the statement of objections filed, would contend that name of the petitioner's company was struck off on account of the voluntary act of the directors and its members and as on the date it was struck off, it was not in operation and restoring the name of such company, which is not in operation with nil assets and liability, would not serve any purpose and it would be meaningless. However, it is also contended in the statement of objections to the following effect: Further, it is submitted that the respondent has no objection in restoring name of the company under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 in case the company is not defunct or is carrying on business or is in operation and the company files its annual return under section 159 and balance sheet under section 220 of the Companies Act for the financial years 2007 to 2012. On this grounds, RoC has sought for suitable Order being passed." After having noticed and recorded the said reply/response from the RoC, the court also observed and recorded that: "10....In fact the RoC himself has also given his consent in the counter objection for restoration of course with a rider namely, directing the petitioner-company to file its annual return and balance sheet, as required under sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 by payment of fine and additional fee. In other words, he has consented for the revival of petitioner-company and its name being restored in the register subject to fulfillment of the requirement of the above section. In other words, he has consented for the revival of petitioner-company and its name being restored in the register subject to fulfillment of the requirement of the above section. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the prayer sought for in the petition to restore the name of the petitioner-company in the register of Registrar of Companies requires to be granted." Thus, it emerges from the said decision that the, court, in the cited case, took into consideration the reply/response from the RoC and on that basis the Issue as to whether application by the company itself, i.e., the company who on its own prayed that its name may be struck off can prefer a petition under section 560(6) of the Act and the issue as to whether a voluntarily action taken by any company and ad-invitem order would fall within the purview of section 560(6) of the Act or not, was not examined in the cited decision, particularly in view of the reply/response filed by RoC. Since the said decision essentially proceeds on the basis of the reply/response by RoC, in view of the facts of present case the said decision does not help the petitioner. 9.3 The decision in case of Pace Holding Ltd. (supra) also does not help present petitioner in view of different set of facts obtaining in present case vis-a-vis the facts in the cited case. So as to appreciate the above mentioned aspects it would be relevant to take into account paragraph Nos. 2 to 6 of the said decision which read, thus: "2. The respondent Registrar of Companies though served and opportunity was provided, objection statement is not filed opposing the petition. 3. The petitioner company which was incorporated on 1st January, 1982 has its registered office situated at No. 17, Palmgrove Road, Austin Town, Bangalore-47. The company during its existence decided that benefit of the Simplified Exit Scheme be taken by the company and seek for striking of the name of the petitioner-company under section 560 of the Act. In view of the same, the necessary applications along with financial statements made as on 31st January, 2004 was filed under the Simplified Exit Scheme. Accordingly, the same was accepted and the name of the petitioner company had been struck from the register and dissolved vide the Gazette Notification dated 18th March, 2006. 4. In view of the same, the necessary applications along with financial statements made as on 31st January, 2004 was filed under the Simplified Exit Scheme. Accordingly, the same was accepted and the name of the petitioner company had been struck from the register and dissolved vide the Gazette Notification dated 18th March, 2006. 4. Subsequent to the same, the company has realised that the petitioner company was not eligible to file the application under the Simplified Exit Scheme and the application made was erroneous due to inadvertence. The company was not eligible for the reason that it possessed assets as on the date of application. It is in that circumstances the petitioner has approached this court praying for the relief as stated above. 5. In exactly a similar circumstance, the question had arisen for consideration before the High Court Judicature at Madras in CP No. 249-250/2010. The said petitions were disposed of on 6th January, 2011 wherein it was held as hereunder: Since it has been contended that they had applied under the Simplified Exit Scheme on thorough misconception of the provisions of the scheme, they would like to restore the company back in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Chennai. In view of the aforesaid facts and as no prejudice would be caused to any one by restoring the company back in the Registrar of Companies, I allow this petition as prayed for. Consequent upon this petition being allowed, CP No. 250/2010 which is also filed on the similar line stands allowed. 6. In the instant case, since the position being similar to the one considered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras and since I do not see any reason to take a different view from what has been taken by the learned Judge of the High Court Judicature at Madras, the said decision is made applicable to the instant case." Thus, in the said case the petition was made on the ground that the application made before RoC was not maintainable and it was filed under misconception. Furthermore, the above mentioned issues which arise in facts of present case were not raised or addressed in the cited decision. Thus, the petitioner is not justified in relying on the said decision. 10. Furthermore, the above mentioned issues which arise in facts of present case were not raised or addressed in the cited decision. Thus, the petitioner is not justified in relying on the said decision. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in light of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons the application is not tenable under section 560(6) of the Act and as such it does not deserve to be entertained under section 560(6)of the Act. Having regard to the aforesaid aspect, present petition is not entertained. It is, however, clarified that if the petitioner and/or the company have any other remedy available in law to seek same and similar relief/s including any other provisions under the Act then present order will not stand in way of the petitioner and it will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief, order and direction, under such other provision or remedy. It is also clarified that this order is limited to the application under section 560 of the Act and scope of said provision. Therefore it will not stand in way of the petitioner to take out any other appropriate proceeding for same request. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Disposed off.