Delhi High Court
Rajeev Mukhija And Ors. vs Union Of India on 8 March, 2018
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 8 March 2018
+ W.P. (C) 2053/2018 & CM APPL.8463/2018
RAJEEV MUKHIJA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gaurav Varma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla,
CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Adv.
for UOI
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 8464/2018
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 2053/2018 & CM APPL.8463/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC who appears for
the respondent, 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
respondent. Therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit would serve no
purpose as the stand of the respondent 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: Future Outsourcing
Management Services Private Limited (for short "FOMS"). The name of
FOMS 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 FOMS had not been
carrying on business due to unavoidable circumstances.
4. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioners are Directors on the
Boards of several other companies also, which are active and functional.
4.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioners' names were
included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial
years 2011 to 2013, their role as Directors is impeded insofar as the other
companies are concerned, which are active and running.
4.2. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do not
wish to revive FOMS, 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 respondent 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 two 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 respondent takes requisite decision with regard to the
request of the petitioners made to it 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 two weeks from
today. In addition thereto, for the moment, the Registrar of Companies
will also activate the petitioners' DIN and DSC.
6. It is also made clear that the aforesaid order will be subject to the
final outcome of the appeals which, I am told, are pending before
Division Bench-I.
7. Consequently CM APPL.8463/2018 shall stand closed.
8. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 09, 2018/rb
