Allowed

Vineet Bajpai and Anr. v. Registrar of Companies and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/3950/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge ordered the stay of the disqualification list regarding the petitioners, activated their DIN and DSC, and granted liberty to file under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018, subject to depositing fees and complying with a linked Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the list's operation concerning petitioners; activated DIN/DSC; granted liberty to apply under Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018; directed deposit of fees.

Vineet Bajpai and Anr. Vs Registrar of Companies and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~80

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3950/2018

¶4

VINEET BAJPAI AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Umang Mittal with Ms. Priyanka Marawah, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Mr.Sanjay Pal, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 20.04.2018

¶11

CM. No.15614/2018

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

W.P.(C) 3950/2018

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Futurecall Learning Systems Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Company has not carried out any business for the past two years and that its bank account has not been operated. 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

¶16

aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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 27.04.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

¶23

(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.

¶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

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

¶28

Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

¶29

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶30

APRIL 20, 2018 neelam

Vineet Bajpai and Anr. v. Registrar of Companies and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Bajpai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Veer Pratap Singh Vs N.D.P.L.Ltd.

Sulochna Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Mr. Bharat Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Apex India Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Pappu Vs Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Vs Pappu

Navdanya Trust and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Subhash Wadhawan & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vishal Goyal & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Abha Kala Jain and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.