Allowed

Sandeep Kumar Arora v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC23 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2440/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, former director who resigned in 2009, sought removal from disqualified directors list after interim stay restored his DIN. Court ordered immediate removal pending final adjudication of disqualification, clarifying it is not a final order.

What did the court decide?

Removal of petitioner's name from list of disqualified directors and posting of order on website within two weeks.

Sandeep Kumar Arora Vs Union of India and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~31

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 2440/2018 and CM No.10122/2018

¶4

% Date of decision : 23^rd March, 2018 SANDEEP KUMAR ARORA ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Alok Kumar Kuchhal, Mr. Manish Jain and Ms. Chanchal Yadav, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶6

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶7

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

The petitioner was the Director of Strydz Corporate Services Private Limited. The Director of the company had submitted his resignation to the Board of Directors on 15^th December, 2009. However, the Board of Directors failed to file Form 32 with the Registrar of Companies.

¶9

The writ petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of the notices dated 6^th September, 2017 and 12^th September, 2017 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs at New Delhi.

¶10

W.P.(C)No.2440/2018 Page 1 of 2

¶11

At the time of issuance of notices in this writ petition, we had granted interim stay of the impugned notices. As a result the DIN number of the petitioner was restored.

¶12

In this background, the petitioner had ceased to be the Directors of the company, as stated by him, on 15^th December, 2009 and could not have been penalized for the failure of the company to effect statutory compliances.

¶13

In view of the above, it is directed as follows :

¶14

(i) The respondents shall forthwith take steps for removal of the petitioner’s name from the list of disqualified directors.

¶15

(ii) The orders to this effect would be posted on the website and shall also be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from today.

¶16

(iii) It is clarified that this would not preclude the Registrar of Companies from passing a fresh order disqualifying the petitioner, if any material is found or produced before the ROC to indicate that the petitioner’s statement that the petitioner had never consented to act as a Director of the Company, is false, or any material is produced which establishes that the petitioner had acted as a Director of the Company in any manner.

¶17

This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶18

Dasti.

¶19

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶21

MARCH 23, 2018/ aj

¶22

W.P.(C)No.2440/2018 Page 2 of 2

Sandeep Kumar Arora v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar Arora 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Gosain Vs Punjab & Sind Bank

Mr. Kshitiz Kumar Vs the Lt. Governor of Gnct and Ors.

Mohit Electronics Vs the Workman Tahir Hussain

Shantilal Singhee Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sanjay Bansal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manoj Bansal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sunil Kumar Jain Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kailash Ram Vs Union of India and Ors.

Brij Kishore Sabharwal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ashok Gupta & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Yeshwanth Shenoy Vs the Union of India & Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vivek Khanna Vs Union of India and Ors.

National Highways Authority of India Vs Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.