Now, from the material available on record, it is contended that there is necessity in law and fact to restore the name of company in the register maintained by the ROC, for according to learned counsel if the company is not restored and the entity is not revived, the properties of the company either will be lost or taken over by persons who cannot and could not claim title from the company.

Ravi has substantially reiterated the averments referred to above and contends that the request to cancel the name of the company in the register of ROC was made in bona fide belief that the company had no asset and liability, the shareholders have no objection for striking off the name of the company and accordingly the application dated was made. The restoration does not prejudice the cause of any one, on the other hand, enables the legal entity to protect the property and if necessary realize consideration by sale of these properties.ДҐ. Therefore, he prays for striking off the cancellation order and restoration of the name of the company in the register of ROC.

The petitioner categorically alleged that the restoration of name of company in the register of the ROC is mandatory to deal with the available, but undisclosed, assets of the company. Therefore, even without selling the available assets and distributing the sale proceeds to the shareholders, request for striking off the name of the company from the register was made and was accepted in routine course. It is further averred that the landed property of the company was not in the knowledge of the petitioner though he was the Chairman. The copies of request and the striking off order of ROC are placed on record as Annexures PI and P2.Д¤. The ROC struck off the name of company on. The petitioner having been left with no option, on, applied under Section 560 of the Act to strike off the name of the company. It is further stated that the STC ended in dismissal, for the company failed to prove that the said Directors continued to hold documents or records of the company. The retention of books and documents resulted in filing of a complaint under Section 630 of the Act by the company in the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad vide STC No. The erstwhile Directors after ceasing to be the Directors of the company have continued to hold books and vital documents of the company. In the meeting convened by the Chairman, new Board of Directors of the company was constituted. The Company Law Board, with the expiry of the term of these two Directors appointed Chairman to conduct meeting of shareholders of the company. Directors did not enjoy the confidence of majority of shareholders of the company. According to petitioner, these two Directors acted to the detriment of the company. On, the Managing Director Sri A.S.V.R.G.K. The company was set up in Hanuman Junction, Krishna District to manufacture and do business in paper boards. Petitioner alleges that he was a shareholder of the company. The petition is filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short вЂthe ActвЂ™) to cancel the striking off name of respondent company/M/s Sree Raja Rajeswari Paper Mills Limited (for short вЂthe companyвЂ™) pursuant to application dated and to restore the name of company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (ROC). One Velamti Chandrasekhara Janardan Rao is the petitioner.Дў.

Raja rajeswari v mangipudy