Delhi High Court
Ripudaman Lamba And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 March, 2018
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on:9.3.2018
+ W.P. (C) 2220/2018, CM APPL.9187-9189/2018
RIPUDAMAN LAMBA AND ANR. .... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anup Kumar and Ms. Neha
Jaiswal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj,
Advocate for R-1 to 3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.9188-9189/2018 (exemptions)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 2220/2018, CM APPL.9187/2018 (interim directions)
2. Issue notice. Mr. Ripu Daman 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: Team One
Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ("Team One"). The name of Team One
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 Team One had not been
carrying on business for more than three years.
4. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do not
wish to revive Team One, they would take steps under Section 248 (2) of
the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in
Sandeep Singh (supra).
4.1 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 the 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. 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.9187/2018 shall stand closed.
8. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 09, 2018/c
