Incorrect Corporate Identification Number in Gazette notification renders the striking off of a company void ab initio.

The Petitioner, a director and member of M/s Aggi Exports Pvt. Ltd., challenged the "struck off" status of the company in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies (ROC)

The Petitioner contended that the mandatory procedure for striking off a company under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956—including the issuance of inquiry letters, notices by registered post, and publication in the Official Gazette—was never followed

The Respondent (Union of India) opposed the petition, relying on a Gazette Notification dated June 23, 2007, and raising preliminary objections regarding a 16-year delay in filing the petition and the availability of an alternative remedy before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013

Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, which mandates a specific multi-stage notification procedure before a company name can be struck off

Section 560(6) of the Act, which provides a 20-year limitation period for seeking restoration

Purushottamdass v. Registrar of Companies, establishing that restoration is maintainable within 20 years if "just"

Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, holding that a party may utilize the full extent of a limitation period

Madras High Court decision in AGD. P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, which clarifies that the High Court’s constitutional powers under Article 226 are not absolutely barred by statutory remedies, especially when the underlying administrative action is void

The Court found that the Gazette Notification dated 23.06.2007 cited by the Respondent was factually inapplicable, as it listed a different CIN (U99999...) than that of the Petitioner’s company (U51900...)

This "fatal discrepancy" rendered the striking off void ab initio

Regarding delay, the Court reasoned that since Section 560(6) allows for a 20-year window for restoration, a petition filed 16 years after the alleged striking off is legally permissible and within time

Finally, the Court rejected the "alternative remedy" objection, noting that since no valid notification was ever published for the specific company, the limitation period for the statutory remedy under Section 252 of the 2013 Act never commenced, making the NCLT route unavailable or ineffective

The Court rejected the objections of delay and alternative remedy, concluding that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction was properly invoked

The Court directed that the name of the Petitioner’s company, M/s Aggi Exports Pvt. Ltd., be restored to the Register of Companies