Disposed

Rajiv Gaur & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC16 May 2018W.P.(C)/1851/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition challenging the disqualification of petitioners as directors due to the strike-off of a company name. The Court directed the Registrar of Companies to inquire into the petitioner's assertions regarding disputes with other directors. Pending the inquiry, the previous stay on the disqualification list and the facility to reactivate the petitioner's DIN and DSC

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the ROC to inquire into the petitioner's assertions regarding disputes with other directors of SVRL. The previous order's stay and facilities rega

Rajiv Gaur & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1851/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.7722/2018

¶4

RAJIV GAUR & ANR

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

Through Mr. Syed Asif Iqbal and Mr. Parmesh Bali, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

¶9

..... Respondents Through Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Adv.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 16.05.2018

¶13

1 On 27.02.2018, the following order was passed:-

¶14

“....1. Issue notice. Mr. Shukla accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.

¶15

2. In this case, the petitioners’ disqualification occurred on account of the name of Shamoga Valley Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (in short “SVRL”) being struck off from the Register of Companies.

¶16

3. It appears that the petitioners have had, in the past, disputes with other directors on the Board of SVRL, namely, Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary and Mr. Naresh Thakur and his wife. Though the disputes appeared to have been settled qua these persons, I am informed that the petitioners did not want to continue their engagement with SVRL.

¶17

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are also directors on the Boards of other companies which are active and fully

¶18

functional.

¶19

4.1 The submission, therefore, is that the inclusion of the name of the petitioners in the list of directors disqualified for Financial Years 2014 to 2016, i.e. (annexure P-1) is impacting their role as directors in those companies which are active and functional.

¶20

4.2 The details of these companies have been provided in the petition.

¶21

5. Mr. Shukla, who appears on an advance notice says that he would have to take instructions in the matter since the petitioners do not wish to continue their engagement with SVRL.

¶22

6. In these circumstances, renotify the matter on 16.5.2018. By which time, Mr. Shukla will file a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

7. In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned list i.e., (annexure P-1) insofar as it includes the name of the petitioners is stayed till 31.3.2018.

¶24

8. In order to facilitate the petitioners functioning as directors qua active and functional companies respondents will re-activate the petitioners’ DIN & DSC. This facility is given to the petitioners only till 31.3.2018.

¶25

9. By which time, I am told the Division Bench No.1 would have heard the matter pending before it which deals with a similar issue....”

¶26

2 Time was given to the counsel for the official respondents to file their counter affidavit in the matter. Counter affidavit has not been filed. Mr. Shukla, however, says that the assertions made by the

¶27

petitioner could be inquired by ROC.

¶28

3 In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the ROC to enquire into the assertions made by the petitioner with regard to his stand that he has disputes with other directors of SVRL, whose names are set out in the order dated 27.02.2018. Pending the inquiry, the directions issued qua the petitioner in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the order dated 27.02.2018, will continue to operate. The ROC will, however, be at liberty to vary or withdraw the facilities given to the petitioner, in case the situation demands passing of such an order.

¶29

4 Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

5 Pending application shall stand closed.

¶31

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶32

MAY 16, 2018 A

Rajiv Gaur & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Gaur & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Six Dee Telecom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Board of Trustees, E.P.F. Organization

Jaswant Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gajraj Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

K.D. College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Shamshuddin Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Sh Bhagwan Dass and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Ayush Tiwari Vs Faculty of Law & Ors.

Garuav Dahiya Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Taponidhi Shri Panchayati Anand Akhada and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ritesh v. Mathankar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunder Lal Jain and Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Datt Mediproducts Private Limited Vs Drugs Controller General (India)

M/S Bull Dogs (a Unit of S and a Hospitality) Vs Sub Divisional Magistrare (S.D.M) and Anr.

Sheetal Malhotra Vs Chief Passport Officer and Ors.