Delhi High Court
Bishnu Narayan Singh & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 6 March, 2018
$~60
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 06.03.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2003/2018 & CM Nos.8236-37/2018
BISHNU NARAYAN SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Raj Rishi,
Ms. Preeti Kumra and
Mr. Nirbhey Kumar Pathak,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj,
CGSC with Ms. Anubha
Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM No.8237/2018 (exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2003/2018 & CM No.8236/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, who appears for
respondents, accepts notice.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners that they were appointed as
Directors on the Board of the Company by the name of AD
Technosys Private Limited (in short ADTPL). The name of
ADTPL 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 petitioners submitted that ADTPL had not
been carrying on business for more than three years.
4. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioners are also
active Directors on the Board of the company named as Daily
Digital Private Limited which is active and functional.
4.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioners' name
were included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the
financial years 2014-16, their roles as a Directors is impeded
insofar as the other company is concerned, which is active and
functional.
4.2. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do
not wish to revive ADTPL, they 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 petitioners says that the
petitioners 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 petitioners mutatis mutandis.
5.1 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 three weeks from today.
5.2 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.
5.3 Needful will be done by the petitioners within three weeks
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 No.8236/2018 shall stand closed.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 06, 2018/mk
