Disposed

Raghvendra Agarwal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC3 May 2018W.P.(C)/4572/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the inclusion of petitioners in a list of disqualified directors. The court stayed the operation of the list, activated DIN/DSC, and directed compliance with previous Division Bench orders regarding the Condonation of Delay Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Stay on the inclusion of petitioners in the list of disqualified directors; activation of DIN and DSC.

Raghvendra Agarwal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4572/2018

¶4

RAGHVENDRA AGARWAL AND ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Malik with Mr. Dhawal Jain, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for UOI.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 03.05.2018

¶11

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

¶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 matters pending before it.

¶13

The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Hindustan Biodiesel Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company").

¶14

To be noted, this matter came up for hearing on 01.05.2018 before this Court, where, the petitioners sought time to file an additional affidavit to bring on record the fact that the Company had neither carried on any business nor operated any bank account.

¶15

4.1 It is in this background that petitioner no. 2 to 4 have filed affidavits dated 02.05.2018.

¶16

4.2 The petitioners, thus, state that the Company has not carried on any business and has not operated its bank account since 2011. 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.

¶17

Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is 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

Since the captioned writ petition was filed before the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 ("Scheme") was to expire, and information was sought by the Court, this writ petition can be disposed of based on directions passed in other matters. 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.

¶21

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Scheme. Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

¶22

(iv) The writ petitioner 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 15.05.2018. 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

Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

¶25

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.

¶26

Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment. 10. 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

It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

¶29

Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

¶30

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶31

MAY 03, 2018/pmc

Raghvendra Agarwal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra Agarwal and Ors. v. Union of India 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

Supriti Bishwas & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Sarita Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Shashi Dua Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Uk Paints (Overseas) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, New Delhi

Ruchir Mittal Vs Ministry of H.R.D. and Ors.

Ram Gopal Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Manmohan Sharma and Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation through Commissioner

Ram Singh Vs D.T.C

Raj Singh & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Raj Kumar Arora and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S Amba Devi Paper Mills Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Manch (Masum) Vs Union of India

Cesc Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.