Allowed

Gurmeet Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/3249/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi, in a petition challenging the disqualification of directors, stayed the inclusion of petitioners' names in the disqualified directors list and activated their DIN/DSC. The court granted liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme with directions to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000 per company via FDR by 24.04.2018. The petition was disposed of with liberty to revive o

What did the court decide?

Stay on inclusion of petitioners' names in disqualified directors list; activation of DIN/DSC; liberty to apply under Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 with deposit of Rs.30,000 per company via FDR.

Gurmeet Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3249/2018

¶4

GURMEET SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. R.S. Maan and Mr. Rupinder Pal Singh, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ....Respondents Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶8

O R D E R % 18.04.2018

¶9

CM. APPL. No.12787/2018

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

W.P.(C) 3249/2018 & CM. APPL. 12786/2018

¶12

Mr. Singh, who appears for the petitioners says that as indicated on the previous date, i.e. 16.4.2018 affidavits have been filed with the Registry.

¶13

To be noted, the two affidavits vide Diary nos. „109726‟ and „109729‟ dated 13.4.2018 have been furnished to the Court.

¶14

The Registry will have the same placed on record. However, since copies of the affidavits filed have been tendered in Court, I have heard the arguments in the matter.

¶15

I may also note that copies of the said affidavits have been supplied to the counsel for the official respondents.

¶16

The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a list of disqualified directors published by respondent no.1 and 2 to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

¶17

The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the board of company by the name: SDIMT Education Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Company has not carried out any business since the past three years and that its bank account has also not been operated in the past three years. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company's financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

¶18

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 those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

(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. (iv) The writ petitioner(s) will deposit, if not deposited already, 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. (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.

¶24

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. 12. 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

¶28

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶29

APRIL 18, 2018/rb

Gurmeet Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

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

Saritaha Kumari Vs Director General Central Industrial Security Force and Ors.

Ram Niwas Goel Vs Union of India and Ors.

Lal Bahadur Yadav and Ors. Vs Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Yogesh Kumar Malik Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr.

M/S Somdutt Builders P. Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer & Anr.

Satish Kumar and Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pappu Vs Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Ms. Hemika Basiyan Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Ram Niwas Goel Vs Union of India and Ors.

Yogesh Kumar Malik Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr.

Tenzin Rabga Vs Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Sher Noble Manav Vs Union of India & Anr.

Arun Kumar Saraf and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ashwani Mehta Vs Union of India and Anr.