Delhi High Court
Rahul Sahgal vs Union Of India And Anr. on 5 March, 2018
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 5.3.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2027/2018
RAHUL SAHGAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with
Mr. Ruchir Ranjan Rah, Mr.
Siddharth Singh and Ms.
Mahima Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 8389/2018 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2027/2018 & CM No. 8388/2018 (Stay)
2. Issue notice.
3. Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC, accepts notice on behalf of
respondents.
W.P.(C) 2027/2018 Page 1 of4
4. Counsel for the petitioner says that issue raised in the present
writ petition is similar to the issue which arose before the Division
Bench in Prem Prakash Sethi and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.
5. Copy of order dated 10.01.2018, passed in Prem Prakash Sethi
and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. has been placed before me. To be
noted, the said order was passed in WP(C) No. 126/2018.
6. In view of the situation obtaining, the counsels submit that the
writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.
7. Briefly, the facts obtaining in this case are as follows:-
(i) The petitioner's name was included in the list of
disqualified directors for the financial years 2012-2014 as
the company qua which he was appointed as a director,
i.e. Annik Systems Private Ltd.( in short "ASP") had its
name struck off from the Register of Companies.
(ii) According to the petitioner though ASP had filed its
Income Tax returns and Service Tax returns for financial
year 2015-2016, though it failed to file its filing its
financial statements and annual returns for the financial
years 2012-2014.
(iii) It appears that because of this reason, ASP's name was
struck off from the Register of Companies. Counsel for
the petitioner says that the petitioner wishes to revive
ASP and for that purpose, has lodged an appeal vide
diary no. 1651/2018 on 22.02.2018 with the NCLT under
W.P.(C) 2027/2018 Page 2 of4
Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (herein after
"the Act").
(iv) Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the
petitioner wishes to avail the benefit of the Condonation
of Delay Scheme, 2018 (herein after „the Scheme")
framed by the respondents. It is in this context that the
learned counsel has referred to in Prem Prakash Sethi
(supra)
8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the direction
that the directives contained in Prem Prakash Sethi (supra) will
apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioner herein as well.
9. The petitioner will prosecute his appeal with NCLT. The
NCLT will endeavour to dispose of the appeal at the earliest
given the fact that the Scheme expires on 31.03.2018.
9.1 In case, it is not possible for NCLT to dispose of the
appeal before the said date for the reasons under the Act. The
respondent will, as indicated in Prem Prakash Sethi (supra),
extend the tenure of the Scheme.
9.2 Furthermore, in such time, if NCLT disposes of the
appeal and a request of the petitioner, if any, made under the
Scheme is deliberated upon, the operation of the impuged list
(Annexure P1) in so far as it includes the name of petitioner
shall remain stayed.
W.P.(C) 2027/2018 Page 3 of4
10. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner will have the
appeal listed, at the earliest, before the NCLT and make an
application under the Scheme expeditiously. The needful will
be done by the petitioner within 10 days from today.
11. No other directions are called for.
12. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
13. The pending applications stand closed.
14. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 05, 2018
c
W.P.(C) 2027/2018 Page 4 of4
