Disposed

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2057/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to challenge his disqualification as a director. Court directed him to apply for restoration under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018, with stay of the disqualification list.

What did the court decide?

Impugned list stayed till 31.3.2018; Petitioner directed to take steps under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 within 10 days.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Saxena Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment pronounced on: 7.3.2018

¶4

W.P.(C) 2057/2018, CM APPL.8471 & 8473/2018

¶5

MR. RAMESH KUMAR SAXENA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pulkit Deora, Adv. versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:-

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶9

¶10

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Issue notice. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, who appears for respondents, accepts notice.

¶12

1.1. 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 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) .

¶13

Pg. 1 of 3

¶14

W.P.(C) No.2057 of 2018

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Director on the Board of the Company by the name Weiss Bio-Energy India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Weiss”). The name of Weiss was struck off from the Register of Companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial statements and annual returns.

¶16

2.1 Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that Weiss had not commenced operations since its incorporation.

¶17

Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner is also Director on the Boards of the following companies, which are active and functional: (i) Food Processing Equipment Company Private Limited. (ii) R.P. India Foods Private Limited.

¶18

3.1. 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 abovementioned active companies are concerned.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Pg. 2 of 3

¶23

W.P.(C) No.2057 of 2018

¶24

the directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra) . It is made clear that the directives contained therein will apply to the petitioner mutatis mutandis .

¶25

4.1 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 10 days from today.

¶26

4.2 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 petitioner 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.

¶27

4.3 Needful will be done by the petitioner within 10 days from today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar of Companies will also activate the petitioner’s DIN and DSC.

¶28

Consequently CM APPL.8471 & 8473/2018 shall stand closed.

¶29

Dasti .

¶30

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶31

MARCH 07, 2018 /pmc

¶32

Pg. 3 of 3

¶33

W.P.(C) No.2057 of 2018

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Saxena 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cdr Rohit Mehra (0369W) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sushil Chauhan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Syam Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Dlehi & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs Director (Discipline), Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Icai) and Anr.

Rajeev Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

O.K. Yadav and Anr. Vs University of Delhi and Ors.

Sh. Jarnail Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

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

Manoj Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr.

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

Mrs. Poonam Saxena Vs Union of India and Ors.

Cepco Industries Private Limited Vs Union of India

Mahila Hawkers Welfare Assoiation Vs Atique Ahmed & Anr.