Allowed

Shubhomoy Ray v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/1084/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a disqualified director of a non-operating company, sought relief from disqualification. The Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to avail the Condonation of Delay Scheme - 2018 and voluntarily strike off the company, staying the record of disqualification pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to avail Condonation of Delay Scheme - 2018 and file documents for voluntary striking off under Section 248(2). Stay on disqualification list till 31.03.2018.

Shubhomoy Ray Vs Union of India and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1084/2018 & CM Nos. 4527-4528/2018 SHUBHOMOY RAY ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Mani Gupta & Mr. Shashidhar, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 with Ms. Shalij Goswami, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 06.02.2018

¶4

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a “lists of disqualified directors” published by respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the extent that it includes the petitioner’s name.

¶5

The petitioner claims that he is the Directors of a private company named Finnacle Technical Services Private Limited (hereafter ‘the Company’). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner unequivocally states that the Company has not carried out any business for the past three years except its bank accounts have been operated. The petitioner also did not file the requisite returns as required under the Companies Act, 2013 (hereafter ‘the Act’). Consequently, the petitioner has incurred the disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Act.

¶6

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes an unequivocal statement, on instruction of the petitioner, that the petitioner is desirous of availing of the Condonation of Delay Scheme - 2018 (hereafter

¶7

‘CODS - 2018’). However, since the Company has been struck off from the Register of Companies, the petitioner has been disabled from availing the benefits of CODS - 2018.

¶8

The petitioner is also not in a position to seek revival of the Company by filing an appeal under Section 252 of the Act as, admittedly, the Company has not carried out any business and was liable to be struck off from the Register. The petitioner states that, in fact, he would voluntarily seek dissolution of the Company under Section 248(2) of the Act, if he is given an opportunity to do so.

¶9

This Court is of the view that since the Company is not carrying out any business for over three years except its bank account has been operated, the petitioner ought to be provided the benefit of the CODS - 2018. Accordingly, this Court directs as under:-

¶10

(a) The petitioner may file all the requisite returns in relation to the Company to avail the CODS - 2018.

¶11

(b) The petitioner may also file the necessary resolutions and documents for voluntarily striking off the name of the Company as required under Section 248(2) of the Act.

¶12

¶13

(d) The aforesaid documents and applications will not be submitted online but in hardcopies to the Registrar of Companies.

¶14

The Registrar shall scrutinize the same, and if the same are found to be otherwise in accordance with Section 248(2) of the Act, the petitioner would be granted the benefit of the CODS - 2018. The removal of the Company from the Register under Section 248(1) of the Act would be deemed to be under Section 248(2) of the Act, and the petitioner’s application under CODS - 2018 would be sympathetically considered by the Registrar.

¶15

Since an unequivocal statement is made by the petitioner that he would pay the necessary charges and make the necessary application under the CODS - 2018, the impugned list of the disqualified directors, in as much as it includes the names of the directors, is stayed till 31.03.2018 or up till such time as the respondents take a final decision in the matter.

¶16

This order has been passed with due assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

¶17

It is further clarified that the aforesaid order is made on the basis of the unequivocal statements made on behalf of the petitioner above and in the event the statements are found to be incorrect, the petitioner would be liable to be proceeded against Contempt of Court in addition to being subjected to other proceedings.

¶18

The petition and the pending application are disposed of.

¶19

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 06, 2018 uj

Shubhomoy Ray v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubhomoy Ray v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamia Hamdard Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

M K Gupta Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri Kimti Lal Vs Indo Tibetan Border Police Force

S. B. International Vs the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intellingence and Ors.

Oriental Foundry Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr Samir Kumar Das Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Bondstreet Hospitality & Events Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M), & Anr.

Ex. Constable (Driver) Shayam Sunder Vs Lt. Governer (Govt. of NCT of Delhi ) and Ors.

S. B. International Vs the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intellingence and Ors.

Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha (Regd) Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Jainson Appliances Vs Commissioner of Industries D.S.I.D.C. & Ors.

The Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.

Hizbullah Vs Central Information Commission

Kamla Lohtia S.D. College Vs the Cpio Under Rti, University Grant Commission