Disposed

Vijay Shukla and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC13 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2171/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the disqualification of petitioners as directors. Directing compliance with Section 248(2) of Companies Act 2013 and Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018, court stayed impugned list pending pending appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Stay on impugned list till 31.3.2018; direction to comply with Section 248(2) and Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018 within ten days; activation of DIN and DSC.

Vijay Shukla and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~46

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

Judgment pronounced on: 13.03.2018

¶4

+ W.P.(C) 2171/2018, CM. NO. 8983/2018

¶5

VIJAY SHUKLA AND ANR. ..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶11

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Issue notice. Mr. Makhija who appears for respondent no. 1

¶13

& 2, accepts notice.

¶14

1.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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) .

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P. (C) 2171/2018

¶17

It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of the Company by the name Collegiate School Services Private Limited (“CSSPL” ). The name of CSSPL was struck off from the Register of Companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial statements and annual returns. 2.1 Furthermore, the petitioners submitted that CSSPL had not been carrying on business for more than three years.

¶18

Besides this, I am informed that the petitioners are also directors on the Boards of other companies, which are active and functional as averred in annexure P-3. 3.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioners’ names were included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial years 2014-16 their role as a Directors is impeded insofar as the other companies are concerned which are active and running. 3.2. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners does not wish to revive (CSPL and CSSPL) , they would take steps under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in Sandeep Singh & Anr. (supra) .

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

W.P. (C) 2171/2018

¶23

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

¶24

4.1 The petitioners 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.

¶25

4.2 In order to facilitate this exercise, operation of the impugned list, insofar as it concerns the petitioners, 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.

¶26

4.3 Needful will be done by the petitioner within ten days from today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.1/Registrar of Companies will also activate the petitioners’ DIN and DSC.

¶27

It is also made clear that the aforesaid order will be subject to the final outcome of the appeals which, I am told, are pending before Division Bench I.

¶28

Consequently CM APPL 8983/2018 shall stand closed.

¶29

Dasti .

¶30

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶31

MARCH 13, 2018 Nk/cks

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

W.P. (C) 2171/2018

Vijay Shukla and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Shukla and Anr. 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

Bsc C&C Jv Vs Union of India, & Ors.

Jug Lal Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Parivartan Foundation Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh and Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ataullah Khan Vs Satyawati College and Ors.

National Investor Forum Regd. Vs Golden Forests India Ltd.

Asha Devi and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Canara Bank Vs the National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.

Ajay Luthra & Ors. Vs Registrar of Companies NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sugandha Khaitan Vs the Bar Council of Delhi

Rajiv Khanna and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ashok Kuamr Sharma Vs the Regional Passport Officer & Ors.

Sanjiv Nanda Vs Union of India and Anr.

Smt. Rekha Kushwaha Vs Public Grievance Commission and Ors.