Disposed¶31

Sunil Agarwal v. Asst. Registrar of Companies

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026WP/4755/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Companies Act, 2013; complaints at Exhibits P, Q and R; Assistant Registrar of Companies; writ of mandamus; initiate appropriate actions against Respondent No.2; disposal with directions similar to order dated 27 February 2025 in Writ Petition No. 2008 of 2023; three-week timeline for deciding complaints; allegations to logical conclusion on merits and in accordance with law; all contentions kept open; Sunil Agarwal; Bombay High Court Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Karnik and Modak JJ.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to look into and decide the Petitioners' complaints (Exhibits P, Q and R) within three weeks from communication of the order; allegations to be pursued on the basis of the complaints to their logical conclusion on merits and in accordance with law; all contentions kept open. ¶31

Sunil Agarwal vs Asst. Registrar of Companies — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct Respondent No.1 (Assistant Registrar of Companies) to consider and act upon the Petitioners' complaints (Exhibits P, Q and R) and initiate appropriate actions against Respondent No.2 under the Companies Act, 2013. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Respondent No.1 shall look into and decide the complaints mentioned in prayer clause (c) of the Writ Petition within three weeks from the date of communication of the order.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

It is on the basis of the complaints made that the allegations will be looked into and the same be taken to their logical conclusion on merits and in accordance with law.

¶26

Key takeaways

Since the petitioners' counsel was not pressing for the other reliefs, the Court expressly did not go into them.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 4755 of 2024 — Sunil Agarwal and Ors. v. Asst. Registrar of Companies and Anr.; coram M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak, JJ.; decided 24 February 2026. Counsel pressed only prayer clause (c), seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to consider and act upon the Petitioners' complaints (at Exhibits P, Q and R) and initiate appropriate actions against Respondent No.2 under the Companies Act, 2013; counsel invoked this Court's order dated 27 February 2025 in Writ Petition No. 2008 of 2023 between the same parties and sought disposal with similar directions, which the Court found reasonable. Other reliefs were not pressed and were not gone into. The Court directed Respondent No.1 to look into and decide the complaints within three weeks from communication of the order, made clear that the allegations would be looked into on the basis of the complaints and taken to their logical conclusion on merits and in accordance with law, kept all contentions open, and disposed of the Writ Petition.

¶1

2026:BHC-OS:5094-DB

¶2

Bhogale 42.wp-4755-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4755 OF 2024

¶5

Sunil Agarwal and Ors. … Petitioners Versus

¶6

Asst. Registrar of Companies and Anr. .… Respondents

¶7

¶8

Adv. Nishant Chothani a/w Adv. Nikhil Dhole i/b. MLS Vani & Associates, for the Petitioners. Adv. Jigar Parmar i/b. Khaitan and Co., for Respondent No.2.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 24^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is

¶15

pressing for reliefs only in terms of prayer clause (c) of the Writ Petition for the present. Our attention is invited to the order dated

¶16

27^th February 2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2008

¶17

of 2023 (Sunil Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Asst. Registrar of Companies &

¶18

Anr.). Learned counsel urged that the petitioners will be satisfied if the Petition is disposed with similar directions.

Bhogale

42.wp-4755-2024.odt

We find the request made by learned counsel for the petitioners reasonable. Prayer clause (c) of the Writ Petition reads thus :-

¶23

“c. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 to consider and act upon the Petitioners’ complaints (at Exhibits P, Q and R hereto) forthwith and initiate appropriate actions against Respondent No.2 in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013.”

¶24

We make it clear that since the learned counsel for the petitioners is not pressing for other reliefs, we have not gone into the same.

¶25

The respondent No.1 shall look into and decide the complaints which are mentioned in the prayer clause (c) of the Writ Petition within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶26

Our attention is invited to the copy of the communication dated 2^nd April 2025 addressed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies to the Solicitors of the petitioners. It is made clear that it is on the basis of the complaints made that the allegations will be looked into and the same be taken to its logical conclusion on merits and in accordance with law.

¶27

¶28

Bhogale 42.wp-4755-2024.odt

¶29