Disposed

Varinder Pal Singh Kandhari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC12 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/3189/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to amend the prayer clause. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of interim directions and a Division Bench judgment regarding disqualified directors, staying the disqualification, activating DIN and DSC, and requiring a deposit under the Condonation of Delay Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Stay on inclusion in disqualified directors' list; activation of DIN and DSC; liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme; requirement to deposit Rs.30,000/ qua each company.

Varinder Pal Singh Kandhari and Ors. Vs Union of India… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3189/2018

¶4

VARINDER PAL SINGH KANDHARI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Kunal Sabharwal, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. Tushar Mathur, Adv. for Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC for R1-2

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶10

O R D E R % 12.04.2018 CM No. 14197/2018

¶11

Issue notice. Mr. Tushar Mathur accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.

¶12

This is an application seeking amendment in the prayer clause. The amended prayer clause is adverted to in paragraph 3 of the application. Mr. Tushar Mathur, who appears on behalf of the official respondents, says that he does not oppose the application.

¶13

2.1 Learned counsel submits that since the amendment was sought only qua the prayer clause the amended writ petition was not filed.

¶14

2.2 The said statement is taken on record.

¶15

Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed.

¶16

W.P.(C) 3189/2018 & CM No. 12624/2018

¶17

With the consent of counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing. To be noted, even otherwise in normal course, the writ petition is fixed for hearing today.

¶18

In view of the order that I propose to pass, the counsel for the official respondents says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter.

¶19

In this matter, I am informed by the learned counsel for the official respondents that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

¶20

Counsel for writ petitioner(s) are agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with a right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

¶21

Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶22

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

¶23

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

¶24

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies.

¶25

(iv) The writ petitioner(s) will deposit, if not already deposited, a sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 24.04.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

¶26

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

¶27

The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in a batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union Of India and Ors.

¶28

Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

¶29

Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶32

APRIL 12, 2018/ SRwt

Varinder Pal Singh Kandhari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varinder Pal Singh Kandhari and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Renaissance Aqua Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Balak Ram & Ors. Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Birender Sangwan Vs Distt. Judge North West & Anr.

M/S a-Von Industries Vs Shri Avinash @ Avnish & Anr.

Amrita Kumari Vs Director of Education and Ors.

Bhoop Singh Vs M/S. Haldiram Marketing Pvt. Tld

Hirdya Nand Chaudhary Vs M/S. Haldiram Markeing Pvt. Ltd.

Spice Mobiles Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ms. Ragini Singh and Anr. Vs Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi, and Haryana and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Jain Vs NTPC Ltd. and Ors.

M/S. Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajasthan Sun Technique Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Rajesh Gupta & Anr. Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.