Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kalra & Anr vs Registrar Of Companies, Nct Of ... on 23 February, 2018
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 23.2.2018
+ W.P.(C) 1742/2018
SANJAY KALRA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Harbola with
Mr. Ketan Madan, Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NCT OF DELHI &
HARYANA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla,
CGSC.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. Issue notice. Mr. Shukla who appears for the respondents
accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
2. According to counsel for the petitioners, the issue which
arises in the present petition is covered by the judgment of
another Single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2017, passed in
W.P.(C)11381/2017 titled: Sandeep Singh & Anr. vs. Registrar
of Companies & Ors.
2.1 Therefore to my mind, no counter affidavit is required as
the stand of the respondents is no different than that which
obtained in Sandeep Singh & Anr (supra). Furthermore, I am
told that directives contained in the said judgment were
incorporated with the assistance of learned ASG.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed,
inter alia, as Directors on the Board of the company by the
name: K.C. Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. (for short "KCGI")
3.1 It is averred that since KCGI failed to file its financial
statements and/or requisite annual returns, its name was struck
off from the Register of Companies by respondent no.1/ROC.
3.2 It is also the petitioners‟ case that besides the
aforementioned company, petitioner no.1 is a Director in K.P.
Overseas Limited, which is presently, active and functional.
4. It is, thus, the petitioners‟ case that the inclusion of their
names in the list of disqualified Directors for financial years
2014-2016 has impacted their role as Director qua companies
which are presently active and functional.
4.1 Furthermore, it is the petitioners‟ case that they were not
given notice prior to their names being included in the
impugned list i.e., Annexure P-4.
4.2 Petitioners further aver that KCGI could not commence
any operations since its incorporation.
4.3 In these circumstances, the petitioners wish to take
recourse to provisions of Section 248(2) of the Companies Act,
2013 and accordingly, have the name of KCGI removed from
the Register of Companies.
4.4 The Counsel for the petitioners says that this liberty has
been given by this Court in Sandeep Singh & Anr.(supra).
Furthermore, petitioners also submit that they wish to take
benefit of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (in short
„Scheme‟)
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel
for the parties and also assertions made in the petition, I am
inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the directions that
the directives contained in the Sandeep Singh & Anr.(supra)
will apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioners as well.
5.1 The petitioners will, however, take appropriate steps
under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 within a
period of four weeks from today.
5.2 In addition, thereto, the petitioners will also take requisite
steps under the Scheme, albeit, within a period of four weeks
from today. Pending the consideration of petitioners‟ request,
the impugned list annexed as Annexure P-4, insofar as
petitioners are concerned, shall remain stayed till 31.3.2018 or
till such time a decision is taken by respondent no.1/ROC, on
the request of the petitioner, whichever is later. In order to
facilitate this exercise, the respondent no.1/ROC will also
activate petitioners DIN and DSC.
6. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2018
mk/cks
