Allowed

Manoj Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2044/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed the petitioner's petition directing compliance with Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018, and stayed the disqualification list until compliance or further orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to comply with Section 248(2) Companies Act, 2013 and Condonation of Delay Scheme within ten days. Stay granted on disqualification list till 31.3.2018.

Manoj Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment pronounced on: 6.3.2018

¶4

W.P. (C) 2044/2018, CM APPL.8430-8431/2018

¶5

MANOJ GUPTA ..... Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC with Mr. Rohit Saroj, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:-

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER %

¶11

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

¶12

CM APPL.8431/2018 (exemption)

¶13

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

¶15

Issue notice. Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC who appears for respondents, accepts notice.

¶16

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the issue which arises for consideration in this case is covered by the judgment of another Single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2017, passed in W.P.(C)11381/2017 titled: Sandeep Singh & Anr. v. Registrar of

¶17

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Companies & Ors. This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. Therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit would serve no purpose as the stand of the respondents is the same as in Sandeep Singh & Anr. (supra) .

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Director on the Board of the Company by the name Ukuya India Pvt. Ltd. (“Ukuya”). The name of Ukuya was struck off from the Register of Companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial statements and annual returns.

¶21

3.1 Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that Ukuya had not been carrying on business since its incorporation.

¶22

Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner is also a Director on the Board of Grid Infocom Pvt. Ltd. which is active and functional.

¶23

4.1. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner’s name was included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial years 2014-16, his role as a Director is impeded insofar as the other company is concerned which is active and running.

¶24

4.2. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner does not wish to revive Ukuya, he would take steps under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra) .

¶25

4.3 Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner would also like to avail the benefit of the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

¶26

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

Having regard to the assertions made in the petition and the records which are presently available with me, I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of with the direction that respondents will follow the directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra) . It is made clear that the directives contained therein will apply to the petitioner mutatis mutandis .

¶29

5.1 The petitioner will, however, take steps both in consonance with the provisions of Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 within a period of ten days from today.

¶30

5.2 In order to facilitate this exercise, operation of the impugned list, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, will remain stayed till 31.3.2018 or, till such time the respondents take requisite decision with regard to the request of the petitioners made to them in consonance with the provisions under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

¶31

5.3 Needful will be done by the petitioner within ten days from today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar of Companies will also activate the petitioners DIN and DSC.

¶32

Consequently CM APPL.8430/2018 shall stand closed.

¶33

Dasti .

¶34

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶35

MARCH 6, 2018/ vikas /

¶36

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Manoj Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Gupta 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Quayamuddin Vs All India Institute of Medical Science (Aiims) & Anr.

Vasundhara Celebration Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Shri Subhash Nagpal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Engineers India Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court

Tulsi Ram Meena Vs UOI & Ors.

Vipin Kumar Vs N.D.M.C. & Ors.

Dharam Nath Singh Vs N.D.M.C. & Ors.

Occupational Health and Safety Association Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sita Rawat Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Mohammad Quayamuddin Vs All India Institute of Medical Science (Aiims) & Anr.

Kanwaljit Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Rahul Sahgal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Nand Kirhore Aggarwal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sandeep Jain and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bishnu Narayan Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.