Remanded

Vijay Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC9 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/9849/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Registrar of Companies to remove the petitioners' names from the disqualified directors list within two weeks, subject to the deposit of requisite fees under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018, noting that re-filing already submitted documents is unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to remove petitioners' names from disqualified directors list within two weeks upon payment of fees under Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

Vijay Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:56:32 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

erstwhile Director Mr.Sureilder Singh, who resigned from the Comply and, in the year 2014, the petitioner no.I joined in his place. It is also stated that the Company had run into difficulty. Financial liabilities of the Company are stated to have been discharged in the year 2015 by the petitioner no.2 from his personal funds.

¶3

¶4

¶5

The writ petition has been instituted in view of the notice dated d"' September, 2017 and 12" September, 2017 issued under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 201Tby jtfe re^oldenfeii^ualifying the petitioners as Directors in the compahy for. .the.jjpason that .ftere was default in submitting retupis with reg^rljfe'tfe a|iii|,:bfi the said^Company which werestatutorily:|e4uiredto'^b|||d^|igpistraro^ continuous period of three fihaneialiyears . " 5. The writ petition inter a/i|%ks quas|!4 of the said notices dated 6" September, 2017 and 12"' Septei | Jr,ic|f' 6. Notice was issued in th|i|^i^|^ order dated 7« November, 2017 when we also granted ii|hi|^||^tices dated 6'" September! 2017 and 12'» September, 201%^^^&emed the writ petitioners. 7. We are today informed by Ms.Maninder Achaiya, learned ASG that pursuant to the stay order iti|^d|^|,i&&g^ Director Identification Numbers ('DIN') of the petitionere were activated by the respondents. Thereafter, the annual returns and financial statements of the Company up to the financial year 2015-16 have been filed by the petitioners in the office of respondent no. 2 between 11" November, 2017 to 1 d'" November, 2017. 8. We are further informed that after filing of these documents, the petitioner no. 2 Sh. Sandeep Kaliraman resigned from the Company w.e.f. 16 November, 2017 and the form DIR.-12 . (erstwhile Form no. 32) stands

¶6

W.P.(C) 9849/2017

¶7

Page 2. of 4

¶8

filed with the Registrar of Companies so far as this petitioner is concerned. 9. A submission has been made before us by Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of the above, so far as the defaults attributed to the Directors is concerned, all deficiencies have been addressed by them and, the relief sought in the writ petition deserves to be granted. 10. It is fiirther submitted by Mr.Manish Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners' that the Company had throughout continued to run its business ^ and, for this reason as well, this writ petition , o^ to be favourably considered. r 11. Contesting, tips claim, ft Ms.M^der Acharya, learned ASG th^ in view of facts, itfis an admitted position that..^e Petitioners that the-action of the respondents in declaring them under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be fa&ll.S I' I 12. Our attention has been the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereinafterScheme, 2018") floated by the respondents, enablin|jsi^5^y|ij ,o seek removal of the S disqualification. It is submitted that in case the petitioners wish to avail the benefit of restoration of thlil^t^^, t|epg||d be re^^^^

¶9

¶10

to the requirements of this Scheme. ' 13. Ms.Maninder Acharya, learned ASG further submits on instractions of Mr.Sanjay Shorey, Joint Director (Legal) and Mr.Rakesh Tiwari, ROC (Delhi & Haryana), that if the petitioner wished to avail of the benefit of the CODS 2018, they may deposit the requisite fee. payable under the scheme with the respondent without the necessity of refilling the document which stands filed as noted above.

¶11

Page 3 of 4

¶12

W.P.(C) 9849/2017

¶13

It is submitted that upon such compliances, the respondents will consider the matter in accordance with law for removal of the names of the petitioners from the list of disqualified directors. This suggestion on behalf of respondents is certainly fair and deserves to be accepted.'

¶14

In view of the above, we direct as follows:

¶15

¶16

(i) Subject to the petitioner submitting the requisite fees with the respondents within a period of two weeks as prayed, the respondents shall forthwith take steps for renidya|fof the petitioners' names from the disqualified directors. Tn case the-petitioners have not submitted the prescribed fomimhder the;,pqi|^ the may-be also - submitted \yith the same p^iod. (ii) It is ma^e clear that gj&n the fact' thafithe petitionersIhve already submitted the deficient re&ns it shalf not be necessary for, them to submit the same afresh alongiyitB|li^|vl|t petition.

¶17

(hi) The orders to this on the website and shall also be communicated to two weeks from the

¶18

deposit of the requisite

¶19

¶20

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

Dasti.

¶22

MARCH 09,2018 gb

¶23

TING jCIHEF JUSTICE C.HARI KAR, J

¶24

W.P.(C) 9849/2017

¶25

Page 4 of 4

Vijay Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh and Anr. 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

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs Director (Discipline), Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Icai) and Anr.

Rajeev Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

O.K. Yadav and Anr. Vs University of Delhi and Ors.

Sh. Jarnail Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bsc C&C Jv Vs Union of India, & Ors.

Jug Lal Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Parivartan Foundation Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh and Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Lalit Kumar Vs Department for the Welfare of Sc/St/Obc/Minorities & Ors.

Bonded Labour Watch Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjucta Kabasi Vs Ravi S Prasad & Ors.

Ajay Gautam Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Sunil Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sushen Mohan Gupta and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.