Delhi High Court
Varun Makkar And Anr. vs Registrar Of Companies, Nct Of ... on 23 February, 2018
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on:23.2.2018
+ W.P. (C) 1740/2018, CM APPL.7221/2018
VARUN MAKKAR AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Dayal, Advocate.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NCT OF DELHI AND
HARYANA AND ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel with Ms. Anju
Gupta and Mr. R.M. Tripathi, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. Issue notice. Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, who appears for respondents,
accepts notice.
1.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the issue which arises
for consideration in this case 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. v. Registrar of
Companies & Ors. This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the
respondents. Therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit would serve no
purpose as the stand of the respondents is the same as in Sandeep
Singh & Anr (supra).
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as
Directors on the Board of the Company by the name Isan Buildtech Pvt.
Ltd. (ISBL). The name of ISBL was struck off from the Register of
Companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial statements
and annual returns.
2.1 Furthermore, the petitioners submitted that ISBL had not been
carrying out business for more than three years.
3. Besides this, I am informed that insofar as petitioner no.1 is
concerned, he is also a Director on the Boards of the following
companies, which are active and functional:
(i) Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(ii) Edge Developers Private Ltd.
(iii) Olive Pharmaz Pvt. Ltd.
3.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioner no.1's name
was included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the
financial years 2014-16, his role as a Director is impeded insofar as the
other three companies are concerned which are active and running.
3.2. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do not
wish to revive ISBL, they would take steps under Section 248 (2) of the
Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in
Sandeep Singh (supra).
3.3 Furthermore, counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners
would also like to avail the benefit of the Condonation of Delay Scheme,
2018.
4. Having regard to the assertions made in the petition and the
records which are presently available with me, I am of the view that this
petition can be disposed of with the direction that respondents will follow
the directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra). It is made clear that
the directives contained therein will apply to the petitioners mutatis
mutandis.
4.1 The petitioners will, however, take steps both in consonance with
the provisions of Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under
the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 within a period of four weeks
from today.
4.2 In order to facilitate this exercise, operation of the impugned list,
insofar as it concerns the petitioners, will remain stayed till 31.3.2018 or,
till such time the respondents take requisite decision with regard to the
request of the petitioners made to them in consonance with the provisions
under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the
Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.
4.3 Needful will be done by the petitioners within four weeks from
today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no. 1/Registrar of
Companies will also activate the petitioners DIN and DSC.
5. Consequently CM APPL.7221/2018 shall stand closed.
6. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2018
/vikas/
