Allowed

Vishnu Kumar Garg v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/5654/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his disqualification under the Companies Act, 2013 for alleged failure to file returns by a company he claimed he never joined as a director. Court set aside disqualification and ordered restoration of DIN pending a show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned list of disqualified directors set aside to the extent it includes petitioner's name; petitioner's DIN to be restored forthwith.

Vishnu Kumar Garg Vs Union of India and Anr. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5654/2018

¶4

VISHNU KUMAR GARG ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Ayush Sharma, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Roshan Lal Goel and Ms Anju Gupta, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 18.07.2018

¶10

CM No. 22053/2018

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 5654/2018 & CM No. 22054/2018

¶13

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors to the extent that it includes the petitioner’s name.

¶14

The petitioner states that he has been disqualified under the provisions of Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 on account of failure on the part of M/s Lark Home Gadgets Private Limited (hereafter ‘the Company’) to file the requisite returns with the Registrar of Companies (hereafter ‘RoC’). The petitioner states that he is neither a signatory to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company nor has ever consented to act as its Director.

¶15

The petitioner states that on 24.01.2001, he became Director of the company named as L. V. Rustore Applications Private Limited. Thereafter, on 30.12.2005, the petitioner also became a Director of the company named as Blossom Landel Private Limited.

¶16

The petitioner also promoted another company named as ELVI Bardahl India Private Limited. At the time when the said company was under incorporation, the petitioner became aware that he was also shown as a Director of the Company.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Form 12 filed by the petitioner for incorporation of ELVI Bardahl India Private Limited. In its application, the petitioner had provided the list of companies in which he was a Director at the material time. The said list also includes a specific noting which reads as under:-

¶18

“Please note that I have neither subscribed to the Memorandum and Articles of Association nor signed or given any consent to become a Director of the third Company whose details are given below i.e. Lark Home Gadgets Private Limited. I came to know of this only today about this discrepancy. Appropriate Action may be taken in this regard.”

¶19

The punitive measure of disqualifying the petitioner is premised on the basis that the petitioner is a Director of the said company. Plainly, if the said assumption is incorrect, the action taken against the petitioner would be unsustainable. The material placed on record also indicates that the petitioner had informed the RoC that he was not a Director of Company and requested that the RoC take action in this regard.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that he does not have any instructions and he can offer no assistance to this Court in the

¶21

matter.

¶22

In view of the above, the impugned list of disqualified directors to the extent that it includes the petitioner’s name is set aside. The RoC shall restore the petitioner’s Directors Identification Number (DIN) forthwith. 10. The RoC may consider the averments made in the present petition and if the RoC still desirous to proceed against the petitioner, it may do so after issuing a show cause notice and after affording the petitioner a full opportunity of being heard.

¶23

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The pending application is also disposed of.

¶24

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶25

JULY 18, 2018 MK

Vishnu Kumar Garg v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Kumar Garg v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Santosh Sangar Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Gyanender Kumar Vs Land and Building Deparment

Anurag Gupta (Minor) through Raghupati Gupta Vs Mayur Public School & Anr.

Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs Honble Lt Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Maggie Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Additional Director General,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, & Ors.

Guru Kirpa Overseas Vs the Additional Director General,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, & Ors.

Mgt.of M/S.W.S.Industries Vs M.Vishwanathan & Anr.

National Coop.Con.F.O I.Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.

Rohit Goel Vs State & Anr.

Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs Honble Lt Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mohd. Sadiq and Anr. Vs the State, through Additional Commissioner

M/S Amitasha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Aravali Infra Power Limited

Anoop Dhawan Vs Bridge Federation of India & Ors.

Kasha Elizabeth Vande Vs Minstry of Home Affairs and Ors.