Delhi High Court
Anirudh Singha vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 February, 2018
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 23 February 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1682/2018
ANIRUDH SINGHA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Pradeep Chhindra, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar and Ms. Vipra Bhardwaj,
Advs. for R-1 & 2
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM No.6919/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1682/2018 & CM No.6918/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. Gogna, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of
respondents no.1 and 2.
3. Mr. Gogna says that in view of the fact that the petitioner relies
upon the order dated 19.1.2018, passed in W.P.(C) No.505/2018 titled:
Ramanathan Annamalai vs. Union of India, the same order can be passed
in the present petition as well.
4. Briefly, the petitioner claims that he was, at the given point of
time, appointed as a Director in the company by the name: Batla
Transport City Service Ltd. (BTSL).
4.1 It is the petitioner's case that he tendered his resignation as a
Director of BTSL on 19.7.2011. For this purpose, my attention is drawn
to Annexure P-6 (colly.) at pages 93 and 94 of the paper book.
4.2 Furthermore, the petitioner submits that the inclusion of his name
in the impugned list i.e., (Annexure P-1) has impacted his role as a
Director in other two companies i.e., AAIC Building Solutions Ltd. and
Plantech Infra Structure Ltd. which are active and fully functional.
4.3 In short, the petitioner claims that these are facts which were not
noticed by respondent no.2 i.e., the ROC.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
inclusion of the petitioner's name in the list of disqualified Directors for
Financial Years 2014-2016 is stayed with liberty to approach respondent
no.2/ROC for appropriate relief.
5.1 The respondent no.2/ROC will hear the petitioner and examine the
veracity of the stand taken by him that he had resigned on 9.7.2011 from
the Board of BTSL. In case the decision rendered by respondent
no.2/ROC is against the interest of the petitioner he will have liberty to
take recourse to an appropriate remedy, albeit, in accordance with law.
6. Needless to say, the aforementioned exercise will be conducted by
respondent no.2/ROC at the earliest, though, not later than six weeks
from today.
7. The petitioner will appear before respondent no.2/ROC on
8.3.2018 at 11.00 a.m. In case the said date is not convenient to
respondent no.2/ROC, he will fix another date with due notice to the
petitioner which will be proximate to the date indicated above.
8. At this stage, I am also informed by Mr. Gogna that insofar as the
aforementioned judgment of this Court is concerned, an appeal has been
filed by respondent no.2/ROC which is pending consideration with the
Division Bench.
8.1 I am told that judgment of the Single Judge in Ramanathan
Annamalai has not been stayed.
9. In order to facilitate the functioning of the petitioner, the DIN and
DSC which have been de-activated will be activated and will remain so
till petitioner's representation is disposed of unless, some supervening
circumstances occur. In such circumstances, respondents would be at
liberty to deactivate the DIN and DSC with due intimation to the Court
and the petitioner.
10. The petition and application are disposed of with the
aforementioned terms.
11. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2018
rb
