Quashed

Gayatrai Devi Singhee v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/1192/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition by directing the stay of the petitioner's disqualification, activation of their DIN/DSC, and liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018, requiring a fixed deposit with the court registry.

What did the court decide?

Stay of disqualification listing; activation of DIN/DSC; liberty to apply under Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018; deposit of Rs. 30,000 FDR per company with registry.

Gayatrai Devi Singhee Vs Union of India & Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~79

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1192/2018 with CM. APPL. 4979/2018

¶4

GAYATRAI DEVI SINGHEE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Virmani, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC and Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶8

O R D E R % 22.03.2018

¶9

Learned ASG says that the Division Bench-I has passed interim directions which permit the companies that do not seek revival and are desirous of having their names being voluntarily struck off from the Register of Companies to avail the benefit of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (in short “Scheme”) as the scheme is expiring on 31.3.2018. The steps that these companies would take in this behalf would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties before the Division Bench which includes the official respondents.

¶10

Furthermore, I am informed that the Division Bench has also directed such companies to create a fixed deposit in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- which would have an initial tenure of six (6) months. The FDRs, so generated, would have to be filed with the Registry of this court on or before 07.4.2018. 2.1 I am also informed that this would be in addition to all other charges that are required to be paid under the Scheme.

¶11

In the aforementioned matters, interim orders have also been passed by me, broadly, on the following lines:

¶12

(a) The operation of the list of disqualified directors in so far as the writ petitioners are concerned shall remain stayed.

¶13

(b) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioners, who are on the Boards of companies whose names have been struck off from the register of companies shall stand activated.

¶14

Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the following directions:

¶15

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner is concerned, shall remain stayed.

¶16

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner will stand activated. (iii) The writ petitioner will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies.

¶17

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 07.04.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

¶18

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause(iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner will also furnish their calculations in that

¶19

behalf.

¶20

The writ petitioner will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in a batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union Of India and Ors.

¶21

Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

¶22

Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

¶23

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶25

MARCH 22, 2018 c

Gayatrai Devi Singhee v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayatrai Devi Singhee v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Shankar Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shiv Shankar Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi through Its Secretary Vs NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Jha Vs Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited

Yoshi & Ors. Vs Esic & Ors.

P K Singh Vs National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

Alka Lamba Vs Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Kailash Gahlot & Ors. Vs Election Commission of India & Ors.

Shiv Shankar Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shiv Shankar Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vijender Gupta and Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shantilal Singhee Vs Union of India and Anr.

Pandarinath Anney Vs Union of India and 0RS.

Vivek Kamboj Vs Registrar of Companies & Anr.