Delhi High Court
Gulab Singh Tanwar & Anr vs Union Of India And Anr. on 9 March, 2018
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 9.3.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2151/2018, CM APPL.8907, 8908/2018
GULAB SINGH TANWAR & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Bisht with Mr.
Aditya Dhar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC for R-1
& 2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.8908/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No.2151/2018 & CM No.8907/2018
2. Issue notice. Mrs. Shiva Lakshmi, who appears for respondent
No.1 and 2, accepts notice.
3. Counsel for the petitioners says that issue raised in the present writ
petition is similar to the issue which arose before a Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.(C) No.2151/2018, titled: Prem Prakash Sethi and Anr.
v. Union of India and Anr.
W.P.(C) No.2151 of 2018 Pg. 1 of 4
4. Copy of order dated 10.01.2018, passed in Prem Prakash Sethi and
Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. has been placed before me. To be noted,
the said order was passed in WP(C) No. 126/2018.
5. In view of the situation obtaining, the counsels submit that the writ
petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.
6. Briefly, the facts obtaining in this case are as follows:-
(i) The petitioners‟ names were included in the list of
disqualified directors for the financial years 2012-2014 as
the company qua which they were appointed as directors,
i.e. Blue Waters Motion Pictures Private Limited ( in short
"BWMP") and Saras Aviation Private Limited (in short
"SAPL") had their names struck off from the Register of
Companies.
(ii) It appears that because of this reason, the names of both the
abovementioned companies were struck off from the
Register of Companies. Counsel for the petitioners says that
the petitioners wish to revive BWMP & SAPL, and for that
purpose, has lodged an appeal being CP/CA No.347(ND)
2017 with the NCLT under Section 252(1) of the Companies
Act, 2013 (herein after "the Act").
(iii) Furthermore, counsel for the petitioners says that the
petitioners wish to avail the benefit of the Condonation of
W.P.(C) No.2151 of 2018 Pg. 2 of 4
Delay Scheme, 2018 (herein after „the Scheme") framed by
the respondents. It is in this context that the learned counsel
has referred to in Prem Prakash Sethi (supra)
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the
direction that the directives contained in Prem Prakash Sethi
(supra) will apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioners herein as
well.
8. The petitioners will prosecute their appeal with NCLT. The
NCLT will endeavour to dispose of the appeal at the earliest given
the fact that the Scheme expires on 31.03.2018.
8.1 In case it is not possible for NCLT to dispose of the appeal
before the said date for the reasons under the Act, the respondent
will, as indicated in Prem Prakash Sethi (supra), extend the tenure
of the Scheme.
8.2 Furthermore, in such time, if NCLT disposes of the appeal
and a request of the petitioners, if any, made under the Scheme is
deliberated upon, the operation of the impugned list (Annexure P1)
in so far as it includes the names of petitioners shall remain stayed.
9. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners will have the
appeal listed, at the earliest, before the NCLT and make an
application under the Scheme expeditiously. The needful will be
done by the petitioners within two weeks from today.
W.P.(C) No.2151 of 2018 Pg. 3 of 4
10. 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.
11. No other directions are called for.
12. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
13. The pending application stands closed.
14. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 09, 2018/pmc
W.P.(C) No.2151 of 2018 Pg. 4 of 4
