JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notification dated 28.05.2010 by which name of the petitioner’s company has been struck off and also for direction to the Registrar of Companies to restore the name of the company on the roll of the companies. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the above company are that the petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company was duly registered and incorporated bearing registration CIN No. U51109UR198PTC0086. The petitioner company was incorporated for manufacturing and trading in packaging material. It was in active operations till about 1996. Thereafter, because of law business volume, the factory was shut down. The Directors had infused funds by way of unsecured loans to settle the credit facilities from Bank. The company did not file its balance sheets and annual returns as per the requirements of Section 159 and 220 with the Registrar of Company after 1996. Therefore, its name was struck off under Section 560 by Registrar of Company. The petitioner company has filed its returns till 1995-96 but the same is still engaged in the business. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent in the petition, wherein it is stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 560(1) of the Companies Act but no reply was received on behalf of the petitioner by the respondent and thereafter name of the petitioner company was struck off from the roll of the Companies register, maintained by the Registrar of Companies, as per the provisions of Section 560(3) of the Act. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the Sub-Section (6) of Section 560 of the Companies Act, which reads as under:- “(6) If a company, or any member or creditor thereof, feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, the Court, 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 its register, order the name of the company to be restored to the register, and the Court 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.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court otherwise has power, if it thinks just and proper that the company be restored to the register, order the name of the company to be restored to the register. He further submitted that as per sub-section (6) of Section 560 of the Act, member may apply before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice, before the Court for restoration of his name in company register, which is maintained by the Registrar of Companies and also submitted that impugned order has been passed in the year 2010, therefore, the application moved on behalf of the petitioner is within time. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated before this Court that company is still continuing its business. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court, passed in Medtech Pharma (India) Private Limited. Vs. Registrar of Companies, 2010 INDLAW DEL 1074, wherein the Delhi High Court has restored the name of the company by following the judgment of various High Courts. Para 10 of the said judgment is being reproduced as under:- “10. Vs. Registrar of Companies, 2010 INDLAW DEL 1074, wherein the Delhi High Court has restored the name of the company by following the judgment of various High Courts. Para 10 of the said judgment is being reproduced as under:- “10. I might notice that Rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, states inter alia as follows; Unless for any special reasons that the Court shall otherwise order, the order shall direct that the petitioners do pay to the Registrar of Companies his costs of, and occasioned by the petition.” 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgment of Delhi High Court, cited above, and in exercise of power under sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Companies Act, and by perusal of documents filed with the petitions, it appears that the Company is still engaged in its business, therefore, this Court is of the view that the name of the Company be restored to the Register, under the name of the Company with Registrar of Companies, subject to the payment of cost amounting to Rs. 40,000/-, to be deposited by the company with High Court Legal Services Committee. In addition, further cost of Rs. 10,000/- be paid to Registrar of Companies. The cost be paid within a period of one month from today. 10. The restoration of name of the petitioner company would be subject to completion of all formalities including payment of any late fee or any other charges, leviable by the respondent for late deposit of statutory documents. The impugned order stands set aside. The name of the petitioner company, its Director, and Members, as a consequence, shall stand restored to the register of the Registrar of Companies, as the name of the Company had not been struck off, in accordance with Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. 11. Petitioner is also directed to file certified copy of its returns before the Registrar for compliance of the Court’s order and shall also present the receipt of the cost before the Registrar. If said cost of ‘ 50,000/- is not paid within a period of one month, as directed above, the impugned order shall automatically stand recalled. 12. This disposes of the petition. 13. Stay application (CLMA No. 12256/2011) also stands disposed of.