Delhi High Court
Sanjiv Nanda vs Union Of India And Anr. on 13 March, 2018
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 13.03.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2179/2018
SANJIV NANDA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aaditya VijayKumar
with Mr. Keith Vanghese,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. C. George, Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM. APPL. 9001/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2179/2018 & CM. APPL. 9000/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. George, 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)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 petitioner that he was appointed as
Director on the Board of the Company by the name Vista Kraft
Paper Private Limited (VKPPL). The name of VKPPL was struck
off from the Register of Companies on account of failure to file the
requisite financial statements and annual returns.
4. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner is also
Director on the Boards of the following companies, which are
active and functional: (see annexure P5)
4.1 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 a Director is impeded insofar as
the other companies are concerned which are active and running.
4.2 Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner does
not wish to revive VKPPL he would take steps under Section 248
(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives
contained in Sandeep Singh & Anr. (supra).
4.3 Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the
petitioner 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
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.
5.1 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 ten days from today.
5.2 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.
5.3 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.
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 the Division Bench - I.
7. Consequently CM APPL. 9000/2018 shall stand closed.
8. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 13,2018
Nk/cks
