Allowed

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

Delhi HC13 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/3638/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench stayed the operation of the disqualified directors list and activated the petitioners' DINs. It directed the filing of an affidavit to avail the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018, and ordered a deposit of Rs. 30,000 per company via FDR.

What did the court decide?

Stayed inclusion in disqualified directors list; activated DINs; liberty to file affidavits under Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018; directed deposit of Rs. 30,000 per company via FDR.

Rajesh Gupta & Anr. Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 3638/2018

¶4

RAJESH GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Ms.Kiran Ahlawat and Mr.Ashwani Upadhyay, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for R-1 and R- 2

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶9

O R D E R % 13.04.2018

¶10

CM No.14446/2018

¶11

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) No.3638/2018 & CM No.14445/2018

¶13

The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a list of disqualified directors published by respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

¶14

The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the board of company by the name: R R Educon Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Company has not carried out any business since its incorporation. 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

¶15

included in the impugned list.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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 20.04.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

¶22

(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.

¶23

The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

To be noted, even though counsel for petitioner(s) submitted that they wish to avail of benefit of CODS 2018, the same has not been prayed for in the captioned Writ Petition.

¶28

10.1 Therefore counsel for petitioner(s) will file an affidavit to that effect with registry of this court. The affidavit, inter alia , would state that the petitioner(s) would want to avail CODS 2018, and that they have not done business for the past three years and that no bank account has been operated.

¶29

10.2 The affidavit shall be filed on or before 20.04.2018.

¶30

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

¶31

Dasti under signatures of Court master.

¶32

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

¶33

APRIL 13, 2018 mamta

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Dr Ananya Sharma Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Tulsi Dass Vs M/S Reva Auto Industries

Mohd. Sajid Vs Union of India and Ors.

First Overseas Vs UOI & Anr.

Union of India & Anr. Vs B.C. Kailay

Debasis Bera Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary and Anr.

Rajesh Prasad Srivastava Vs Union of India and Ors.

Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

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

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

Spice Mobiles Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

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

Narendra Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hari Om Bhatia Vs the Central Registrar & Anr.