[2025:RJ-JP:41414] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 57/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1554/2007 M/s Kanodia Rubeer Pvt. Ltd., A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Village Suwana, District Bhilwara, Through Its Duly Authorized Director Mahendra Kumar Kanodia S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Kanodia , Age About 72 Years, Resident Of A-401,panchsheel, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The District Collector, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). 3. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). 4. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 5. The Deputy General Manager, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Ajmer (Rajasthan). 6. The Branch Manager, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). 7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Ajmer (Rajasthan). 8. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Bhilwara, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan). 9. M/s Sanghvi Industries, Suwana, Bhilwara Through Its Partners., 9/1 Smt. Priya Snaghvi (Surana), W/o Shri Sandeep Sanghvi, Aged 24 Years. 9/2. Shri Nem Kumar Sanghvi S/o Kanhaya Lal Sanghvi Aged 51 Years. 9/3. Smt. Subhadra Sanghvi W/o Shri Nem Kumar Sanghvi, Aged 48 Years; All Are R/o 4-N-8, R.c. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:41414] (2 of 3) [WRW-57/2024] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Advocate with Mr. Waseem Ahmed Qureshi Advocate, Mr. Parth Singh Dhakad Advocate Mr. Gaurav Choudhary Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla Advocate with Mr. Raghav Sharma Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 10/10/2025 1. Heard on application (No.85/2024) for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned. 3. This is a review petition preferred by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 31.08.2021 passed by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after this Court rendered the writ petition as having become infructuous by the aforesaid order, the company has been revived by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short ‘NCLT’) vide its order dated 31.08.2023 and the appeal preferred thereto was disposed of with direction to the Registrar of the Company to restore the name of the Company. Further, it was directed that the Company shall be deemed to be operational in all respects as if the name of the Company had not been struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.9/2 submits that they are auction purchasers and their rights could be affected if the petition is restored. 6. I have considered the submissions. [2025:RJ-JP:41414] (3 of 3) [WRW-57/2024] 7. On dated 31.08.2021, this Court has passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instructions. Learned counsels appearing for the respondent Nos.9 and RFC have submitted that the company has already been dissolved and the properties have already been auctioned and the respondent No.9 is an auction purchaser. Keeping in view all the facts and aforesaid, this Court taking notice that the company has already been dissolved and has already been struck-off from the record, the writ petition is rendered otiose and the same is dismissed as having become infructuous. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” 8. Thus, this Court did not examine the merits of the writ petition and declared the writ petition as having become otiose on account of the Compnay having been dissolved and struck off from the record. 9. In view of the order passed by NCLT dated 31.08.2023, the Company stands restored to its original name as if the name of the Company had not been struck off. 10. In view thereof, the writ petition is required to be heard on merits and cannot be said to have become infructuous. I, therefore, recall the order dated 31.08.2021 and restore the writ petition to its original number. 11. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.9/2 would be free to address on merits in the writ petition. 12. Notices of the writ petition shall also be served on the other concerned respondents, who may appear. 13. The review petition is, accordingly, allowed. 14. Let the writ petition now be listed for hearing before the appropriate Bench. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Sanjay Kumawat/13