Delhi High Court
Ajay Kumar Singhal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 March, 2018
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 9 March 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2037/2018
AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ....Respondents
Through Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla,
CGSC with Mr. Suraj Kumar,
Adv. for UOI.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM No.9162/2018
1. This is an application for early hearing.
1.1 For the reasons given therein, the application is allowed and the
matter is taken up for hearing.
W.P.(C) 2037/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. Shukla who appears for respondents, accepts
notice.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner 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) No.
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).
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Director on
the Board of the Company by the name: Dhariwal Polymers Private
Limited (for short 'DPPL'). The name of DPPL was struck off from the
Register of Companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial
statements and annual returns.
2.1 Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that DPPL had not been
carrying on business for more than three years.
3. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner is also Director on
the Boards of other companies, which are active and functional as
mentioned in the Director details appended as Annexure P-1 to the writ
petition.
3.1. Counsel for the petitioner says that since petitioner's name was
included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial
years 2014-16, his role as Director is impeded insofar as the above
mentioned are concerned which are active and running.
3.2. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner does not
wish to revive DPPL, he would take steps under Section 248 (2) of the
Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in
Sandeep Singh (supra).
3.3 Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner
would also like to avail the benefit of the Condonation of Delay Scheme,
2018.
4. 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 petitioner mutatis
mutandis.
4.1 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 two weeks
from today.
4.2 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.
4.3 Needful will be done by the petitioner within two weeks from
today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar of
Companies will also activate the petitioner's DIN and DSC.
5. 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.
6. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 09, 2018
