Allowed

Madan Abbott & Ors. v. Registrar of Companies & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/1379/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the petition challenging disqualification of directors due to non-filing of returns for non-operating companies. Directed the petitioners to file requisite returns, resolutions for voluntary striking off under Section 248(2), and apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme-2018 in hardcopy, with the disqualification list stayed pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the petition; directed filing of returns, resolutions for voluntary striking off, and application under CODS-2018; stayed the disqualification list till March 31, 2018 or further orders.

Madan Abbott & Ors. Vs Registrar of Companies & Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1379/2018

¶4

MADAN ABBOTT & ORS ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr Himanshu Harbola and Mr Ketan Madan, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr R. L. Sinha, Advocate for UOI.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 13.02.2018

CM No.5735/2018

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

W.P.(C) 1379/2018 & CM No.5734/2018

¶14

The petitioners have 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 names of the petitioners.

¶15

The petitioners claim that they are the Directors of private companies named Sahibabad Associates Private Limited and Marwon Hotels Private Limited (hereafter ‘the Companies’). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners unequivocally states that the Companies have not carried out any business and their bank accounts are also not in operation for the past three years. The petitioners also did not file the requisite returns as required under

¶16

the Companies Act, 2013 (hereafter ‘the Act’). Consequently, the petitioners have incurred the disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Act.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners makes an unequivocal statement, on instruction of the petitioners, that the petitioners are desirous of availing of the Condonation of Delay Scheme - 2018 (hereafter ‘CODS - 2018’). However, since the Companies have been struck off from the Register of Companies, they have been disabled from availing the benefits of CODS - 2018.

¶18

The petitioners are also not in a position to seek revival of the Companies by filing appeals under Section 252 of the Act as, admittedly, the Companies have not carried out any business and were liable to be struck off from the Register. The petitioners state that, in fact, they would voluntarily seek dissolution of the Companies under Section 248(2) of the Act, if they are given an opportunity to do so.

¶19

This Court is of the view that since the Companies are not carrying out any business and their bank accounts have not been operated for over three years, the petitioners ought to be provided the benefit of the CODS - 2018. Accordingly, this Court directs as under:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

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 petitioners would be granted the benefit of the CODS - 2018. The removal of the Companies from the Register under Section 248(1) of the Act would be deemed to be under Section 248(2) of the Act, and the petitioners’ application under CODS - 2018 would be sympathetically considered by the Registrar.

¶25

Since an unequivocal statement is made by the petitioners that they 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

The petition and the pending application are disposed of.

¶29

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶30

FEBRUARY 13, 2018 MK

Madan Abbott & Ors. v. Registrar of Companies & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Abbott & Ors. v. Registrar of Companies & 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

Executive Engineer (Civil) Sbpd, Prasar Bharti Vs M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited

Binil P.T. Vs the Govt. of Nctd and Ors.

Sunplast India Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Niranjo Devi and Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner Sadar Paharganj Zone and Ors.

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs G S Thind

Shaleen Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs the Maintenance Tribunal & Ors.

Amod Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (Tpddl)

Union of India Vs Hemanta Panda

Sh. Amar Nath Saini, Vs the Honble District Judge (North-West), Rohini and Anr.

Suresh Chand Gupta and Anr. Vs Archaeological Survey of India and Ors.

Bhawna Sood Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Jawahar Lal Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Mr. Naveen Goel and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.