Delhi High Court
Dinesh Lal Tarachandani And Anr. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 7 March, 2018
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 7 March, 2018
+ W.P. (C) 2122/2018
DINESH LAL TARACHANDANI AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Preeti
Kumra and Mr. Raj Rishi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with
Ms. Madhuri Dhingra, Adv. for
UOI
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM No.8810/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 2122/2018 & CM No.8809/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. Ajay Digpaul who appears for respondents,
accepts notice.
2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the issue which arises
for consideration in these cases 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: Ideal Aviationnet Private
Limited (for short 'IAPL'). The name of IAPL 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 IAPL had not been
carrying on business for more than three years.
4. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner is a Director on the
Board of the following company, which is active and functional:
(i) Parazelsus India Private Limited.
4.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioner's name was
included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial
years 2014 to 2016, his role as a Director is impeded insofar as the
abovementioned active company is concerned.
4.2. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner does not
wish to revive IAPL 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 petitioners 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 (10) 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 petitioner 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 (10) days from
today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar of
Companies will also activate the petitioner's DIN and DSC.
6. Consequently CM APPL. No. 8809/2018 shall stand closed.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 7, 2018
rb
