Delhi High Court
Lalit Tanwar & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 8 January, 2018
$~27
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 110/2018 & CM Nos.487-88/2018
% Date of decision : 8th January, 2018
LALIT TANWAR & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Dhruv Gautam and
Mr. Devashish Chauhan, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC
with Mr. Akshaya Agarwal and
Mr. Sanjay Pal, Advs. for R-1
&2
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. Right at the outset, Mr. Dhruv Gautam, Advocate who appears
for the petitioners submits that by bonafide error, there is an erroneous
statement on page 5 of the synopsis to the following effect :
"The petitioners have regularly filed their income
tax returns within the stipulated time period for the
all companies in which they were the directors and
have always conducted their business in
accordance with law."
2. We are informed by Mr. Gautam that it is not so inasmuch as no
business was commenced by the said company. The correct position
as informed today is taken on record.
3. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia,
impugning a "lists of disqualified directors" published by respondent
nos. 1 and 2 to the extent that it includes the name of the petitioners.
4. The petitioners claim that these are the Directors of a private
company named M/s Billionaire Entertainment Private Ltd. (hereafter
"the Company") and have incurred the disqualification under Section
164(2) of the Act.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners makes an
unequivocal statement, after seeking instructions, that the petitioners
are desirous of availing of the Condonation of Delay Scheme -2018
(hereafter "CODS - 2018"). However, since the Company has been
struck off from the Register of Companies, it has been disabled from
availing the benefits of CODS - 2018.
6. The petitioner is also not in a position to seek revival of the
company by filing an appeal under Section 252 of the Act, since
admittedly the Company has not carried out any business and was
liable to be struck off from the Register. The petitioners state that, in
fact, it would voluntarily seek dissolution of the Company under
Section 248(2) of the Act, if they have the opportunity to do so.
7. This Court is of the view that since, admittedly, the Company is
not carrying out any business and its bank account has not been
operated for over three years, the petitioners ought to be provided the
benefit of the CODS - 2018. Accordingly, this Court directs as under:-
(a) The petitioners may file all the requisite returns in relation to
the Company to avail the CODS - 2018.
(b) The petitioners may also file the necessary resolutions for
voluntarily striking off the name of the Company as required under
Section 248(2) of the Act.
(c) The petitioners would also make a necessary application under
CODS - 2018 alongwith the requisite charges.
(d) The aforesaid documents and applications will not be submitted
online but in hardcopies to the Registrar of Companies.
8. The Registrar shall scrutinize the same, and if the same are
found to be otherwise in accordance with Section 248(2) of the Act,
the petitioners would be granted the benefit of the CODS - 2018. The
removal of the Company from the Register under Section 248(1) of
the Act would be deemed as striking off the Company under Section
248(2) of the Act, and the petitioner's application under CODS - 2018
would be sympathetically considered by the Registrar.
9. Since an unequivocal statement is made by the petitioners that
they would pay the necessary charges and make the necessary
application under the CODS - 2018, the impugned list of the
disqualified directors, in as much as it includes the name of the
directors, is stayed till 31.03.2018 or up till such time as the
respondents take a final decision in the matter.
10. It is clarified that if the petitioners do not avail of the CODS-
2018 or file the necessary documents as required for dissolution of the
company under Section 248(2) of the Act as stated above; in addition
to other consequences, the petitioners would also be liable to be
prosecuted for contempt of Court.
11. It is further clarified that the aforesaid order is made on the
basis of the unequivocal statements made on behalf of the petitioner
above and in the event the statements are found to be incorrect, the
petitioners would be liable to be proceeded against contempt of court
in addition to being subjected to other proceedings.
12. The petition and the pending applications are disposed of.
Dasti.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JANUARY 08, 2018/kr
