Delhi High Court
Purna Nand & Ors. vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2018
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 12.3.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2272/2018 & CM APPL. 9416 of 2018
PURNA NAND & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Arora, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 9416 of 2018(Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2272/2018
2. Issue notice. Ms. Prakash, who appears for the
respondents accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
3. According to counsel for the petitioners, the issue which
arises in the present petition 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. vs. Registrar
of Companies & Ors.
3.1 Therefore to my mind, no counter affidavit is required as
the stand of the respondents is no different than that which
obtained in Sandeep Singh & Anr (supra). Furthermore, I am
told that directives contained in the said judgment were
incorporated with the assistance of learned ASG.
4. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed,
inter alia, as Directors on the Board of the company by the
name: Purnanand Construction Pvt. Ltd. (for short "PCPL").
4.1 It is averred that since PCPL failed to file its financial
statements and/or requisite annual returns, its name was struck
off from the Register of Companies by respondent no.2/ROC.
4.2 It is also the petitioners‟ case that besides the
aforementioned company, the petitioners are Directors in PNSC
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which is presently, active and
functional.
5. It is, thus, the petitioners‟ case that the inclusion of their
names in the list of disqualified Directors for financial years
2014-2016 has impacted their role as Director qua companies
which are presently active and functional.
5.2 Petitioners further aver that PCPL has not carried out any
business for past several years.
5.3 In these circumstances, the petitioners wish to take
recourse to provisions of Section 248(2) of the Companies Act,
2013 and accordingly, have the name of PCPL removed from
the Register of Companies.
5.4 The Counsel for the petitioners says that this liberty has
been given by this Court in Sandeep Singh & Anr.(supra).
Furthermore, petitioners also submit that they wish to take
benefit of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (in short
„Scheme‟)
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel
for the parties and also assertions made in the petition, I am
inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the directions that
the directives contained in the Sandeep Singh & Anr.(supra)
will apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioners as well.
6.1 The petitioners will, however, take appropriate steps
under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 within a
period of four weeks from today.
6.2 In addition, thereto, the petitioners will also take requisite
steps under the Scheme, albeit, within a period of four weeks
from today. Pending the consideration of petitioners‟ request,
the impugned list, insofar as petitioners are concerned, shall
remain stayed till 31.3.2018 or till such time a decision is taken
by respondent no.2/ROC, on the request of the petitioner,
whichever is later. In order to facilitate this exercise, the
respondent no.2/ROC will also activate petitioners DIN and
DSC.
7. Dasti
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
March 12, 2018
ns
