JUDGMENT : Sudershan Kumar Misra, J. 1. This petition has been filed by Bandhu Systematix P. Ltd. (hereinafter known as the "petitioner") under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for restoration of its name in the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (hereinafter called the "respondent") as a company limited by shares on July 17, 1984, vide, Certificate of Incorporation No. 18703 of 1984-85 with the object of carrying on the business, inter alia, as manufacturers and/or dealers in all types of machinery, plant equipment accessories and spores required for and used for printing binding perforating folding stitching or manufacture of other stationery used for such purposes. Presently, the registered office of the petitioner is stated to be situated at 8-B, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002. 2. The respondent initiated the proceedings under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, to strike off the name of the petitioner of the register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, non-filing of annual returns from 2000 to 2015, and balance-sheets from 1998 to 2015. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that procedure under section 560 was duly followed, with notices/letter as required under section 560(1) and (3) sent at the registered office address of the petitioner. It is further submitted that notification under section 560(5) was issued and published in the Official Gazette on June 23, 2007, mentioning the petitioner-company's name at Serial No. 1503. 3. The petitioner however states that it did not receive any notices/letters/show-cause notices as required under section 560(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, nor was it afforded any opportunity of being heard before action under section 560(5) was taken by the respondent. The petitioner also averred that upon inspection of official records of the petitioner-company carried out by its authorised representative, no documents pertaining to section 560 were found. It is further averred that no documents evidencing the basis on which the respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner-company was not carrying on its business was either provided to the petitioner or was available on the records maintained with the respondent. 4. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is within the period of limitation stipulated by section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. 5. 4. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is within the period of limitation stipulated by section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. 5. The petitioner avers that the petitioner-company has all through since its incorporation has been a working concern and at no point of time the petitioner has ever stopped carrying on the business or stopped its business operations. The petitioner also avers that the company is not only a running concern but is expected that in future the company is going to be a profit making concern. In support of this statement, the petitioner has relied on certified copy of its annual accounts for the period 2000 to 2014 and the income-tax returns for the year 2004 to 2014, copies of all of which are annexed with the petition. 6. The petitioner avers that the accounts of the company were prepared and audited every year, and the same is reflected by the annexures attached to the petition. The directors of the company signed the annual accounts of the company but because of lack of legal knowledge, inadvertence and unawareness regarding the annual filing with the Registrar of Companies did not ever question or took steps to carry the statutory compliance. The accountant of the company was aware and duly received all the documents to be filed with the various authorities but he failed to do so. It was submitted that none of the directors of the company were aware that the Registrar of Companies documents have not been filed by the accountant on whom the responsibility was given. It was further submitted that none of the directors, other than Shri Vishwa Bandhu Gupta, had the details of the functioning of the company or the knowledge of the statutory obligations of the company. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was after substantial efforts of the directors that they were able to locate the documents pertaining to the company including the auditor report, income-tax returns but returns filed with the Registrar of Companies could not be located and the accountant was not available. It is further submitted that the directors, on taking services of a company secretary in the month of July 2015, were informed that the name of the company has been strike off from the records of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 8. It is further submitted that the directors, on taking services of a company secretary in the month of July 2015, were informed that the name of the company has been strike off from the records of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 8. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has no objection to the restoration of the petitioner-company's name under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, subject to the petitioner filing all statutory documents, i.e. annual returns from 2000 to 2015 and balance-sheets as from 1998 to 2015, and other requisite documents along with filing fee and additional fee, as applicable on the date of actual filing. The certificates of "no objection" of the directors, to the restoration of the name of the company to the register maintained by the respondent have also been placed on record. 9. In Purushottamdass (Bulakidas Mohta Co. P. Ltd.) v. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra [1986] 60 Comp Cas 154 (Bom), the Bombay High Court has held, inter alia, that (page 160): "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, within a period of 20 years, and to give them an opportunity of carrying on the business only after the company judge is satisfied that such restoration is necessary in the interests of justice." This decision has been followed by this court in Pancham Hotels P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, C.P. No. 554 of 2014, Medtech Pharma (India) P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, C.P. No. 241 of 2009; Santaclaus Toys P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies (C.P. No. 271 of 2009) [2010] 154 Comp Cas 412 (Delhi); Deepsone Non-Ferrous Rolling Mills P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, C.P. No. 285 of 2009; Kakku E and P Control P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (C.P. No. 409 of 2008) [2010] 154 Comp Cas 408 (Delhi) and Sohal Agencies P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (C.P. No. 297 of 2009) [2010] 153 Comp Cas 466 (Delhi). 10. Under the facts and circumstances, it is possible that notice in respect of action under section 560 was not sent to the registered office of the company. 10. Under the facts and circumstances, it is possible that notice in respect of action under section 560 was not sent to the registered office of the company. Consequently, the condition precedent for the initiation of proceedings to strike off the name of the petitioner from the register maintained by the respondent was not satisfied. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is stated to be a running company; and that it has filed this petition within the stipulated limitation period, and to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Purushottamdass (Bulakidas Mohta Co. P. Ltd.) v. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra [1986] 60 Comp Cas 154 (Bom); it is only proper that the impugned order of the respondent dated June 23, 2007, which struck off the name of the petitioner from the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, be set aside. At the same time, however, there is no gainsaying the fact that a greater degree of care was certainly required from the petitioner-company in ensuring statutory compliances. Looking to the fact that annual returns and balance-sheets were not filed for almost seventeen years, the primary responsibility for ensuring that proper returns and other statutory documents are filed in terms of the statute and the rules, remains that of the management. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The restoration of the company's name to the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies will be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 22,000 to be paid to the common pool fund of the official liquidator, and the completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or any other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late deposit of statutory documents within 8 weeks; the name of the petitioner-company, its directors and members shall, stand restored to the register of the respondent, as if the name of the company had not been struck off, in accordance with section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. 12. Liberty is granted to the respondent to proceed with penal action against the petitioner, if so advised on account of the petitioner's alleged default in compliance with section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petition is disposed of.