Disposed¶18

Bal Kishan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Feb 2025W.P.(C)/1382/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bal Kishan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.; W.P.(C) 1382/2025; Delhi High Court; Justice Sachin Datta; order dated 04.02.2025; ROC master data rectification; designation as 'non-executive independent director' vs 'director'; writ of mandamus to Respondent no. 1; e-mail dated 28.12.2024 (Annexure P-10) treated as representation to Registrar of Companies; decision within eight weeks; reasoned order upon rejection; prejudice in ongoing legal proceedings; CM APPL.6748/2025 exemption allowed.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued: e-mail dated 28.12.2024 (Annexure P-10) to be treated as a representation to the ROC, with an appropriate decision thereon preferably within eight weeks; reasoned order by the ROC if the request is rejected. Exemption application allowed subject to just exceptions. ¶18

Bal Kishan Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent no. 1 should be directed to rectify the petitioner's designation on the master data of respondent no. 3 company, on the official portal of respondent no. 1, as 'non-executive independent director' instead of 'director'.

¶14

Court's answer

With consent of learned counsel for respondent no. 1, the e-mail dated 28.12.2024 (Annexure P-10) is directed to be treated as a representation to the ROC, and an appropriate decision thereon shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The exemption application (CM APPL.6748/2025) is allowed, subject to all just exceptions, and stands disposed of.

¶10

Key takeaways

In case the petitioner's request is rejected, the ROC shall pass a reasoned order.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sachin Datta, J.), order dated 04.02.2025 in Bal Kishan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 1382/2025: The petitioner, contending that he is a Non-Executive Independent Director on the board of respondent no. 3 company but that this designation is not reflected in the master data of the Registrar of Companies (ROC), causing him prejudice in ongoing legal proceedings, sought mandamus to respondent no. 1 for rectification of the entry to 'non-executive independent director' instead of 'director'. After some hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner confined himself to prayer (a). With consent of learned counsel for respondent no. 1, the Court directed that the e-mail dated 28.12.2024 (Annexure P-10) be treated as a representation to the ROC and decided expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, failing rejection to be accompanied by a reasoned order. The exemption application (CM APPL.6748/2025) was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶1

$~79

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1382/2025

¶4

BAL KISHAN SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Abhijat, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Siddharth Mehta, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC Mr. Aamir Zafar Khan and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advs. for R-4 and 5.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 04.02.2025

¶9

CM APPL.6748/2025 (Exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

Application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 1382/2025, CM APPLs.6747/2025 ( Stay) and 6746/2025 ( seeking permission to file present petition)

¶13

After some hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner confines himself to pressing prayer-a) of the present petition which reads as under:

¶14

“ a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to the Respondent no. 1 to rectify the designation of the petitioner as reflected on the master data of the respondent no. 3 company on the official portal of respondent no.1 as ‘non-executive independent director’ instead of ‘director’. ”

¶15

It is the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is a Non-Executive Independent Director on the board of

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/02/2025 at 15:09:12

¶17

respondent no.3. However, the same has not been reflected in the master data of the Registrar of Companies (‘ ROC ’) as a result of which considerable prejudice is stated to be caused to the petitioner in various ongoing legal proceedings.

¶18

After some hearing, with consent of learned counsel for respondent no.1, it is directed that the e-mail dated 28.12.2024 (filed as Annexure P-10 to the present petition) shall be treated as a representation to the ROC, and an appropriate decision shall be taken thereon as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶19

In case the request of the petitioner is rejected, a reasoned order shall be passed by the ROC.

¶20

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 4, 2025/ cl

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/02/2025 at 15:09:12

Bal Kishan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Kishan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Dhupar Vs Union of India through Union Minister & Ors.

Bihar Olympic Association Vs President Indian Olympic Association & Anr.

Indian Speech Language and Hearing Association Vs Union of India & Ors.

Prem Prakash Shokeen Vs Election Commision of India & Anr.

Vikas Swami Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sudha Dhawan Vs Delhi Development Authority

The Film and Television Producers Guild of India Limited Vs Competition Commission of India

Amit Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Anil Dhupar Vs Union of India through Union Minister & Ors.

Bihar Olympic Association Vs President Indian Olympic Association & Anr.

Indian Speech Language and Hearing Association Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manshu Bansal Vs Central Information Commission & Ors.

Uttar Pradesh State Rifle Association Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sh. Munshi Ram Vs Consolidation Officer (Village Singhola) & Ors.