Delhi High Court
Manoj Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr. on 6 March, 2018
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 6.3.2018
+ W.P. (C) 2044/2018, CM APPL.8430-8431/2018
MANOJ GUPTA ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC with Mr.
Rohit Saroj, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.8431/2018 (exemption)
1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 2044/2018, CM APPL.8430/2018 (stay)
2. Issue notice. Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC who appears for
respondents, accepts notice.
2.1 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).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Director on
the Board of the Company by the name Ukuya India Pvt. Ltd. ("Ukuya").
The name of Ukuya was struck off from the Register of Companies on
account of failure to file the requisite financial statements and annual
returns.
3.1 Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that Ukuya had not been
carrying on business since its incorporation.
4. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner is also a Director on
the Board of Grid Infocom Pvt. Ltd. which is active and functional.
4.1. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner'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
company is concerned which is active and running.
4.2. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner does not
wish to revive Ukuya, he would take steps under Section 248 (2) of the
Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in
Sandeep Singh (supra).
4.3 Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner
would also like to avail the benefit of the Condonation of Delay Scheme,
2018.
5. 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 petitioner mutatis
mutandis.
5.1 The petitioner 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 ten days from
today.
5.2 In order to facilitate this exercise, operation of the impugned list,
insofar as it concerns the petitioner, 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.
5.3 Needful will be done by the petitioner within ten days from today.
In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar of
Companies will also activate the petitioners DIN and DSC.
6. Consequently CM APPL.8430/2018 shall stand closed.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 6, 2018/vikas/
