Disposed

Krishan Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Registrar of Companies and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/3492/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge court disposed of the writ petition staying the disqualification of petitioners as directors and activating their DINs. It ordered deposit of fees as per the Condonation of Delay Scheme and allowed revival of the petition pending any Division Bench decision on remaining issues. Pending applications were closed.

What did the court decide?

Stayed disqualification of petitioner; activated DIN and DSC; granted liberty to apply under Condonation of Delay Scheme and revive petition; ordered deposit of fees via FDR; closed pending applicatio

Krishan Kumar Jain and Anr. Vs Registrar of Companies… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~46

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3492/2018

¶4

KRISHAN KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. with Mr. Aayush Aggarwal, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for UOI.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 10.04.2018

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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

¶18

the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 20.04.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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. 5. 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶24

APRIL 10, 2018 SRwt

Krishan Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Registrar of Companies and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Registrar of Companies 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

Ravinder Gupta Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Chadha Sports (Regd.) Vs Public Works Department, Gnctd and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs Satish Kumar Mittal

State Bank of India Vs Satish Kumar Mittal

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.

Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya Society (Regd) and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

R. S. Rana Vs C.F.S L through Its Director and Ors.

Zahir Ahmed Vs Sdm Chanakyapuri and Ors.

Dipesh Goswami & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. Yatish Sharma Vs Medical Council of India

Subhash Chand Dhingra & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.