Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 March, 2018
$~29
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2184/2018 and CM No.9029/2018
% Date of decision : 23rd March, 2018
SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Alok Kumar Kuchhal, Mr.
Manish Jain and Ms. Chanchal
Yadav, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... Respondents
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG
with Mr. A.P. Sahay and Ms. J.
Priyadarshini, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The petitioners were the Directors of Jupiter Information
Technologies Private Limited. The Directors of the company had
submitted their resignation to the Board of Directors on 20 th
November, 2007. However, the Board of Directors failed to file Form
32 with the Registrar of Companies. The averments to this effect have
been made on affidavit.
2. The resignation of the petitioners is supported by the Investor
Complaint Form which is made by them on 16th November, 2012 with
the Registrar of Companies wherein also the petitioners had made a
grievance regarding non-filing of Form 32 depicting cessation of the
petitioners' directorship. The Registrar of Companies is not in a
position to admit or deny this fact.
3. We therefore, have no option but to accept this statement of fact
made on affidavit.
4. At the time of issuance of notices in this writ petition, we had
granted interim stay of the impugned notices. As a result the DIN
numbers of the petitioners were restored.
5. In this background, the petitioners had ceased to be the
Directors of the company, as stated by them, on 20 th November, 2007
and could not have been penalized for the failure of the company to
effect statutory compliances.
6. In view of the above, it is directed as follows :
(i) The respondents shall forthwith take steps for removal of the
petitioner's 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 petitioner within two weeks from
today.
(iii) It is clarified that this would not preclude the Registrar of
Companies from passing a fresh order disqualifying the petitioner, if
any material is found or produced before the ROC to indicate that the
petitioner's statement that the petitioner had never consented to act as
a Director of the Company, is false, or any material is produced which
establishes that the petitioner had acted as a Director of the Company
in any manner.
7. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
Dasti.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
MARCH 23, 2018
aj
