Disposed

Pandarinath Anney v. Union of India and 0RS.

Delhi HC22 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/1194/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

JS. Rajiv Shakdher disposed of a writ petition concerning company directors' disqualification. The court granted directions staying the disqualification list, activating DINs, and allowed availing the Condonation of Delay Scheme by filing an affidavit and depositing security via FDR.

What did the court decide?

Stayed disqualification list, activated DINs/DSC, granted liberty to avail Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018 subject to filing affidavit and depositing security via FDR.

Pandarinath Anney Vs Union of India and 0RS. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~139

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1194/2018 with CM. APPL. 4983/2018

¶4

PANDARINATH ANNEY ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Tanisha Khaitan for Mr. Ashish Virmani

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶9

O R D E R % 22.03.2018

¶10

In this matter, I am informed by the learned ASG that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

¶11

Counsels for writ petitioners are agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with a right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

¶12

Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated. (iii) The writ petitioner(s) 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.

¶15

(iv) The writ petitioner(s) 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.

¶16

(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(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

¶17

The writ petitioner(s) 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

To be noted, even though counsel for petitioner(s) submitted that they wish to avail of benefit of CODS 2018, there is no such assertion in the Writ Petition.

¶21

7.1 Therefore counsel for petitioner(s) will file an affidavit to that effect with registry of this court. The affidavit, interalia, would state that the petitioner(s) would want to avail CODS 2018, and that they have not done business for the past three years and that no bank account has been operated.

¶22

7.2 The affidavit shall be filed on or before 07.04.2018.

¶23

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

¶24

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶25

MARCH 22, 2018 c

Pandarinath Anney v. Union of India and 0RS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandarinath Anney v. Union of India and 0RS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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.

Gayatrai Devi Singhee Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vivek Kamboj Vs Registrar of Companies & Anr.