Allowed

Kunal Khatri v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC16 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/1433/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a director whose company was struck off for non-filing of returns could avail the Condonation of Delay Scheme-2018 (CODS-2018) by filing returns, voluntary striking off documents, and the scheme application, if the company had not carried out any business or bank accounts since inception. The disqualified director list was stayed pending the Registrar's decision. The order was

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file returns and documents for CODS-2018 and voluntary striking off; disqualification list stayed till 31.03.2018; pending application disposed of.

Kunal Khatri Vs Union of India and Ors. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1433/2018

¶4

KUNAL KHATRI ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr Anurag Sharma, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Advocate with Mr Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶9

% 16.02.2018

¶10

CM 5907/2018

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application is disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 1433/2018 & CM 5906/2018

¶14

Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

¶15

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.

¶16

The petitioner claims that he is the Director of a private company named Signet Authenticators Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter ‘the Company’). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner unequivocally states that the

¶17

Company has not carried out any business and does not have any bank account since its inception. 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

This Court is of the view that since the Company is not carrying out any business and does not have any bank account since its inception, the petitioner ought to be provided the benefit of the CODS - 2018. Accordingly, this Court directs as under:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

The petition and the pending application are disposed of.

¶31

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶32

FEBRUARY 16, 2018 pkv

Kunal Khatri v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Khatri 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

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)

Vinod Kumar Shah Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors.

Public Information Officer Tihar Jail Vs Om Prakash Gandhi and Anr.

Ranjan Pandey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Investor Protection Group and Anr. Vs Security Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Natwar Lal Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

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

Late K L Hora Memorial Educational Society (Regd.) Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Apar Industries Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yogesh Mahajan Vs Chief Administrative Officer (C.a.O.) (Actg.), Aiims & Ors.

Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Dipak Bhattacharyya Vs Union of India and Anr.