Disposed

Abhishek Aggarwal & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/3690/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench disposed of a writ petition challenging director disqualification pending consideration by a Division Bench. The court stayed the disqualification list, activated petitioner's credentials, and granted liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme with requisite deposits.

What did the court decide?

Stayed list of disqualified directors; activated DIN and DSC; liberty to apply under Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018, with deposits of Rs.30,000/- via FDR.

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

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3690/2018

¶4

ABHISHEK AGGARWAL & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr. R. L. Sinha, Adv. for UOI.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 16.04.2018

¶10

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.

¶11

The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the board of company by the name: Livesphere Systems Pvt. Ltd (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.

¶12

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

¶13

matters pending before it.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶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 f India and Ors. 7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official

¶21

respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

¶25

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶26

APRIL 16, 2018 SRwt

Abhishek Aggarwal & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Aggarwal & 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

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.

Madan Lal Yadav Vs M/S. Haldiram Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

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.

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

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

Narendra Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajesh Prasad Srivastava Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gagan Dhawan and Ors. Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Anr.

Royal Luthra and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.