Delhi High Court
Vijay Shukla And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 13 March, 2018
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 13.03.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2171/2018, CM. NO. 8983/2018
VIJAY SHUKLA AND ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija,
Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. Issue notice. Mr. Makhija who appears for respondent no. 1
& 2, accepts notice.
1.1. 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).
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as
Directors on the Board of the Company by the name Collegiate
School Services Private Limited ("CSSPL" ). The name of CSSPL
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 petitioners submitted that CSSPL had not
been carrying on business for more than three years.
3. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioners are also
directors on the Boards of other companies, which are active and
functional as averred in annexure P-3.
3.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioners' names
were included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the
financial years 2014-16 their role as a Directors is impeded insofar
as the other companies are concerned which are active and running.
3.2. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners
does not wish to revive (CSPL and CSSPL) , they would take steps
under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance
with the directives contained in Sandeep Singh & Anr. (supra).
3.3 Furthermore, counsel for the petitioners says that the
petitioners 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 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 ten days from today.
4.2 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 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 ten days from
today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent
no.1/Registrar of Companies will also activate the petitioners' 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. Consequently CM APPL 8983/2018 shall stand closed.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 13, 2018
Nk/cks
