Delhi High Court
Sunny Gupta vs Union Of India And Anr. on 15 March, 2018
$~23, 43, 47, 48, 49, 66
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1220/2018
SUNNY GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya,
ASG with Mr. Sanjeev
Sabharwal, and Mr. R.K.
Tiwari, ROC; Sh. Sanjay
Shorey, Jt.Director
+ W.P.(C) 10809/2017
AKHIL KUMAR SUREKA AND ORS.
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Adv
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya,
ASG with Mr. Bhagvan
Sarup Shukla, CGSC, and
Mr. R.K. Tiwari, ROC; Sh.
Sanjay Shorey, Jt.Director
+ W.P.(C) 9309/2017
SUMIT GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ashish Virmani and Mr.
Dheeraj Kumar, Advs
WP(C) No. 1220/2018 & Connected matters Page 1 of 5
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya,
ASG with Mr. Sanjeev
Sabharwal, and Mr. R.K.
Tiwari, ROC; Sh. Sanjay
Shorey, Jt.Director
+ W.P.(C) 9310/2017
MADHU SUDAN CHOUDHARY
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Abhishek Puri & Mr.
Rakesh Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya,
ASG with Mr. Rakesh
Kumar, CGSC and Mr. R.K.
Tiwari, ROC; Sh. Sanjay
Shorey, Jt.Director
+ W.P.(C) 9311/2017
RAJESH GUPTA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Virmani and Mr.
Dheeraj Kumar, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
..... Respondent
WP(C) No. 1220/2018 & Connected matters Page 2 of 5
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya,
ASG with Mr. Sanjeev
Sabharwal, and Mr. R.K.
Tiwari, ROC; Sh. Sanjay
Shorey, Jt.Director
+ W.P.(C) 9027/2017 & CM Nos.36934/2017
AMIT GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ashish Virmani and Mr.
Dheeraj Kumar, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya,
ASG with Mr. Sanjeev
Sabharwal, and Mr. R.K.
Tiwari, ROC; Sh. Sanjay
Shorey, Jt.Director
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. These writ petitions have been filed by petitioners, who are
directors in various company registered under the provisions of
Indian Companies Act.
2. Apart from these Companies, the petitioners are stated to be
Directors of other companies as well.
3. The writ petition has been instituted in view of the notice
dated 6th September, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 issued under
Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the respondents
disqualifying the petitioners as Directors in the company for the
reason that there was default in submitting returns with regard to
the affairs of the said Company which were statutorily required to
be filed with the Registrar of Companies for a continuous period of
three financial years.
4. The writ petition inter alia seeks quashing of the said notices
dated 6th September, 2017 and 12th September, 2017.
5. These writ petitioners contend that on account of disputes
between the directors/shareholders, the companies had run into
difficulty and statutory compliances in the nature of filing returns
with the Registrar of Companies were not affected. Proceedings
between the directors are stated to be pending before the National
Company Law Tribunal.
6. At the time of issuance of notices in the writ petitions, we
had granted interim orders of stay of the said notice dated 6th
September, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 so far as they
concerned the writ petitioners.
7. We are today informed by Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned
ASG, on instructions from Mr.Kirtiman Singh, learned CGSC; Mr.
Sanjay Shorey, Director (Legal) for the Union of India and Mr.
Rakesh Tiwari, Registrar of Companies that the respondents have
verified the above position and accept the stated position regarding
the pendency of matters before the NCLT regarding the
management disputes.
8. It is also an admitted position that all these companies are
active companies even on date.
9. In view of this position, it is submitted by Ms. Maninder
Acharya, on instructions, that the respondents shall remove these
petitioners from the list of disqualified directors.
10. In view of the above, it is directed as follows:
(i) The respondents shall forthwith take steps for removal
of the petitioners' name from the list of disqualified
directors.
(ii) The orders to this effect would be posted on the
website and shall also be communicated to the
petitioners within two weeks from today.
In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed in the
above terms.
Dasti.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
MARCH 15, 2018
