'The ROC had failed to prove the allegation that proper steps were taken in compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 252 (4), (5), (6) of the Act which are a prerequisite for striking off the name of Company fro

The present case is similar to the case of 'International Security Printers Private Limited v. ROC Delhi' dated 8th August, 2017. In this case, petition was filed by International Security Printers Pvt. Ltd challenging the order of ROC for striking off the name of the company. The ROC had exercised his power for strike off of companies. The Petitioner company stated that the following: No notice was issued to them and neither did the ROC adhere to any legal procedure which required a letter to be sent to the Company. The gazette notification was required to be published and the copy of the notification was required to be sent to the registered office of the Company. It was averred that without adhering to the aforesaid procedure, the impugned action was vitiated and was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity for hearing was given before taking the impugned step. Hon'ble NCLT observed that the ROC had failed to prove the allegation that proper steps were taken in compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 248 (4), (5), (6) of the Act which are a prerequisite for striking off the name of Company from the Register. In the absence of impugned action of the Respondent, the striking off would be arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the petition was accepted. The petitioner company was restored in the Register of Companies maintained by the ROC.