Dismissed

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

Delhi HC12 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2255/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the petition with a direction to follow the directives of Sandeep Singh and Jyoti Jindal. The petitioners were ordered to take steps under Section 248(2) and the Condonation of Delay Scheme within ten days, with a stay on the disqualification order until the respondent decisions were made or March 31, 2018.

What did the court decide?

Stay on disqualification order until March 31, 2018 or respondent action; petitioners to comply with Section 248(2) and Condonation of Delay Scheme within 10 days.

Rajiv Khanna and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:56:32 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

Companies & Ors. and in W.P.(C)837/2018, titled: Jyoti Jindal v. UOI & Anr. This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent no.l&2. Therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit would serve no purpose as the stand of the respondent no.l&2 is the same as in Sandeep Singh & Anr. and Jyoti Jindal (supra).

¶3

¶4

)

¶5

It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of the Company by the name Jukaso Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ('JHPL'). The name of JHPL was struck off from the Register of Companies on account of failure to file'thei requisite financial statements and annual returns. I ' : ' L T r- ^

¶6

2.1 Furthermore, the petitioners, submitted' that JHPL had not been carrying on business for more than three years. . I

¶7

Besides this, I am informed that the petitioners are also Directors i; y on the Boards of the following , cohipariie,§, which are active and functional: T / T

¶8

(i) Cork Products Pvt. Ltd.

¶9

(ii) Jukaso Resorts Pvt. Ltd. I

¶10

¶11

(iii) Jukaso Facility Management Pvt. Ltd.

¶12

(iv) Jukaso Barter Pvt. Ltd."

¶13

3.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioners' names were included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial years 2012-14, their role as Directors is impeded insofar as the other companies are concerned which are active and running.

¶14

W.P.(C)2255/2018

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

3.2. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do not wish to revive JHPL, they would take steps under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in Sandeep Singh and Jyoti Jindal (supra).

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

4.1 The petitioners will, however, take steeps both, in consonance with the provisions of Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 201^ wijhip a period of ten days from today.

¶20

¶21

4.2 In order to facilitate this exercise, operation of the impugned hs, insofar as it concerns the petitioners, will remain stayed till 31,3.2018 or, till such time the respondent no,l&2 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 un er the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

. j

Page 3 of 4

W.P.(C)2255/2018

4.3 Needful will be done by the petitioners 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. 5. It is 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.

¶27

¶28

Consequently CM APPL.9317/2018 shall stand closed.
7. Dasti.

¶29

/v 1 ^ ^
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 12, 2018
IvikasI

¶30

¶31

W.P. [C]2255/2018

¶32

^"9^ 4 of 4

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Khanna 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

F.G. Runda Vs Air India Ltd.

Union of India & Anr. Vs S.K. Verma

Rakesh Kapoor Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sarah J. Chhotray Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhmani Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Satyendra Kumar Vs Maharaja Agarsain Public School & Anr.

Voice of Ex Servicemen Society and Ors. Vs Director General of Resettlement Department of Ex Serviceman Welfare Ministry of Defence

Anil Sanghi Vs Income Tax Officer

Lokbeta Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Lokbeta Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ajay Kumar Singhal Vs Union of India and Ors.

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

Sugandha Khaitan Vs the Bar Council of Delhi

Nikhil Bansal Vs Union of India & Anr.