Delhi High Court
Puneet Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 February, 2018
$~6
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 26.02.2018
+ W.P.(C) 1378/2018 & CM No.5733/2018
PUNEET KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shobhan Mahanti, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC
with Mr. Ruchir Ranjan Rai
and Mr. Siddharth Singh,
Advs.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. Notice in this writ petition was issued on 13.2.2018 when
Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC had entered appearance on behalf of
the respondent no.1 & 2. Ms. Shiva Lakshmi was permitted on that
date to file a counter affidavit. Despite the opportunity, no counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2. Learned
counsel for the petitioner says that the issue which arises for
consideration in the present case is similar to the issue which arose
for consideration in W.P.(C)No.11275/2017, titled: Harpreet Singh
Batra & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
2. A copy of the said order has been furnished in court today.
A perusal of the same shows that a learned Single Judge of this
Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2017, passed in
W.P.(C)No.11275/2017, has issued certain directions qua the
petitioner in view of the case, which the petitioner herein prays to
be applied to this petition.
3. Broadly, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as
a Director on nine companies, the details of which are given in
Annexure-P2, appended to the instant petition. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that out of the nine companies referred
to, the names of the following two companies have been struck-off
from the Register of Companies :
(i) Vedant Management Services Limited
(i) One Point solution Matrix Private Limited
4. This situation, according to learned counsel for the petitioner
came about as the financial statements and requisite annual returns
were not filed over three years. As a result of the same, the name
of the petitioner got included in the list of disqualified Directors for
the financial years 2014-16. This list is appended as Annexure-P1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that no notice was issued to
the petitioner prior to inclusion of his name in the impugned list
(i.e., Annexure-P1).
5. It is hence this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner
further contends that the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in
the impugned list (i.e., Annexure-P1) has also impacted his role as
a Director on the Board of other companies which are active and
fully functional.
6. Notwithstanding the above, it is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner would like to approach the Registrar of
Companies for having the names of the two companies, referred to
above, struck-off permanently from the Register of Companies by
taking recourse to the provisions of Section 248 (2) of the
Companies Act, 2013.
7. Furthermore learned counsel for the petitioner says that the
petitioner would also like to avail the benefits of Condonation of
Delay Scheme, 2018 (in short 'the scheme'). In support of this
submission, as indicated above, the petitioner relies upon the
directions contained in Harpreet Singh Batra & Anr.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the
view that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following
directions:
(i) Respondent no.1 & 2 will apply the directives contained in
Harpreet Singh Batra & Anr. to the petitioner as well.
(ii) It is made clear that the directives contained in Harpreet
Singh Batra & Anr. will apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioner.
(iii) Furthermore, the petitioner will take requisite steps, both
under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Scheme
within a period of four weeks from today.
(iv) Pending the request of the petitioner, the operation of the
impugned list qua the petitioner will remain stayed till 31.3.2018
or till such time his request is dealt with by respondent no.1 & 2.
(v) Respondent no.1 & 2 will also activate the DIN and DSC of
the petitioner.
(vi) Needless to say, the directions will obtain in favour of the
petitioner only if the petitioner takes requisite steps within the
timeline indicated above.
(vii) No order as to costs.
9. It is also made clear that the aforesaid order will be subject
to the final outcome of the appeals which, I am told, are pending
before Division Bench-I.
10. This writ petition and pending application are disposed of
the aforementioned terms.
11. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2018
aj
