Delhi High Court
Upma Sharma And Ors. vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors. on 7 March, 2018
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 7 March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2110/2018
UPMA SHARMA AND ORS. .... Petitioners
Through Mr. Himanshu Harbola and
Mr. Ketan Madan, Advs.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ORS. ....Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for R-1 to
3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM No.8765/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2110/2018 & CM No.8764/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. Rajesh Gogna who appears for respondents no.1 to
3, 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 they were appointed as Directors on
the Board of the Company by the name Pramod Sharma Media Network
Private Limited (for short 'PSMN'). The name of PSMN 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 PSMN had not been
carrying on business for the immediate preceding two years.
4. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioners are also Directors on
the Boards of the following companies, which are active and functional:
(i) Time Round Network Private Limited
(ii) Religion of Humanity
4.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioners' names were
included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial years
2014-16, their role as Directors is impeded insofar as the abovementioned
active companies are concerned.
4.2. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do not wish
to revive PSMN, 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 ten (10) days 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 ten (10) days from
today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.1/Registrar of
Companies will also activate the petitioners' DIN and DSC.
6. Consequently, CM APPL No.8764/2018 shall stand closed.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 7, 2018
rb
