Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 972 (UTT)

Hazi Powerlooms Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

2016-12-16

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Gazette Notification dated 22.05.2010 (Annexure No. 3) as far as it relates to the petitioner herein at Serial no. 471, which came to be published in Part III Section I. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2 herein/Registrar of Companies to restore the name of the petitioner Company in its register.” 2. The name of the petitioner company M/s Hazi Powerlooms Pvt. Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Opp. Moh. Nathha Singh, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar has been ordered to be struck off from the register of the Registrar of the Companies Act. 3. Section 560 of the Companies Act prescribes the power of the Registrar to strike off the name of the defunct company from its register. It lays down the procedure for striking off the same. It provides that where the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe that a company is not carrying on business or is not in operation, he shall send a letter to the company inquiring whether it is carrying on business or is in operation. If he does not receive reply within one month of sending the letter, he shall send another letter within 14 days thereafter by registered post. On failure to receive reply to the second letter within one month, he shall publish a notice in the official gazette expressing opinion of striking off the name of the petitioner from the register. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the instant case, the aforesaid provisions of sub-section (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Companies Act have not been complied with by the respondent authority before striking off the name of petitioner company from its register. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have fairly conceded the aforesaid fact that the provisions of subsection (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Companies Act have not been complied with. 6. Learned counsel for the parties further submitted that, in the identical case, order has been passed in Writ Petition No. 1313 of 2016 (M/S) by the Coordinate Bench of this Court for restoration of the name. 6. Learned counsel for the parties further submitted that, in the identical case, order has been passed in Writ Petition No. 1313 of 2016 (M/S) by the Coordinate Bench of this Court for restoration of the name. They prayed that present petition may also be decided in same terms. In view of submission of learned counsel for the parties and, in view of the admitted fact, that the provisions of sub-section (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Companies Act have not been complied, it is just and proper to restore the name of the company in the register of the Registrar of Companies. It is hereby directed that the name of the petitioner company be restored in the register of the Registrar of the Companies and the notification published in respect of petitioner-company would stand set aside. 7. Since the name of the petitioner company was notified in the gazette way back in the year 2010 and six years have elapsed since then, therefore, a cost of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) is imposed on the petitioner, which shall be deposited in the account of the Registrar of Companies, Uttarakhand (respondent no.2) within a period of six weeks from today. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.