Pawan Kumar Jain vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11302/2023
Date of decision: 29.04.2026.
IN THE MATTER OF:
PAWAN KUMAR JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv. [9999004468]

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Mr.
Chaitanya Puri,s Ms. Ayushi
Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr.
Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik,
Mr.Ujjwal Tyagi, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
“(a) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to facilitate change of the
status of the company from “struck off” in order to fix the error in the
register and to make “active” in the register of companies status of
corporate entity M/s Aggi Exports Pvt. Ltd. [Company Identification No.
U51900DL1990PTC039734].

(b) Pass such other and further orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The petitioner, Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, is one of the directors and a
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
09:55:37

member of M/s Aggi Exports Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in Delhi. The petitioner
has approached this Court aggrieved by the status of the company being
reflected as 'struck off' in the register of companies maintained by the
respondent, i.e., the Union of India through the Registrar of Companies,
NCT of Delhi & Haryana.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before
striking off the name of the petitioner's company, the mandatory procedure
under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') was completely
disregarded. He points out that the Registrar of Companies never issued the
first letter of inquiry under Section 560(1), nor the second notice by
registered post under Section 560(2). No notice was published in the Official
Gazette under Section 560(3), and consequently the final action under
Section 560(5) was never validly taken. He argues that the striking off is,
therefore, illegal and void ab initio .
4. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply relying on a Gazette
Notification dated 23.06.2007, claiming that the name of the petitioner's
company was struck off. Learned counsel for the respondents also raises
various objections. The primary objections are that the petition is barred by
delay as the striking off occurred in 2007 and the petition was filed in 2023,
and that the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy before the
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 252 of the
Companies Act, 2013.
5. The Gazette Notification dated 23.06.2007, heavily relied upon by the
respondent, does not pertain to the Petitioner's company. The company listed
at Serial No. 6719 bears Corporate Identification Number (CIN)
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
09:55:37

U99999DL1990PTC039734. The petitioner's company, however, has a
distinct and different CIN, i.e., U51900DL1990PTC039734. This Court is of
the considered opinion that a notice or notification issued for a different CIN
is, in the eyes of law is a fatal discrepancy that renders the impugned action
void ab initio .
6. Regarding the objection of delay, Section 560(6) of the Act expressly
permits a company, its member or creditor to apply for restoration before the
expiry of twenty years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.
The present petition, filed in 2023, is well within this 20-year period
computed from 2007. The Bombay High Court in Purushottamdass and
1
Another v. Registrar of Companies , has held that a restoration petition
filed within 20 years is maintainable, and that the Court can order restoration
even if the company was not carrying on business at the time of striking off,
if it is otherwise just to do so. The Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Thakur
2
Singh v. State of Gujarat has further held that a party is entitled to wait
until the last day of limitation to avail a legal remedy. Hence, the objection
of delay is rejected.
7. The respondent's contention that the Petitioner should have availed
the alternative statutory remedy before the National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT) is found to be without merit. Since this Court has held that no valid
Gazette Notification was ever published for the petitioner's company, the
period of limitation for filing an application under Section 252(3) of the
Companies Act, 2013 has never commenced, and the said statutory remedy
is not available to the Petitioner. The respondent's objection is also answered

1
1984 SCC OnLine Bom 342
2
(1981) 1 SCC 495
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
09:55:37

by the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in AGD. P. Ltd.
3
v. Registrar of Companies , where the Court held that when no formal order
of striking off is passed, the consequential publication is not valid, and that
the existence of a statutory remedy does not bar the High Court's
constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227. Therefore, the availability
of statutory remedy is not an absolute bar.
8. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the objections
raised by the respondents are without merit.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition stands allowed. The name
of the petitioner’s company is directed to be restored.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2026
Nc



3
2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13818
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
09:55:37