Sanyam Suneja v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi High Court · 26 Apr 2018 · 2018:DHC:9020
Rajiv Shakdher
W.P.(C)4281/2018
2018:DHC:9020
corporate appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

Delhi High Court stayed the disqualification of directors for non-filing of statutory returns, reactivated their DIN and DSC, and permitted compliance under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

Full Text
Translation output
$-75,94 &98 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)4264/2018
RAGHVI GOSWAMI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shobhan Mahanti,Adv. "i
VERSUS
UNION OFINDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajesh Gogna,CGSC with Ms.L.
Ganguli,Adv.for R1&2.
W.P.(C)4281/2018
SANYAM SUNEJA Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OFINDIA AND ORS. Respondents
W.P.(C)4285/2018
MADAN MOFIAN GROVER Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
26.04.2018
W.P.(C)4264/2018& connecledmatters 1 of4
2018:DHC:9020 CM APP No. 16658/2018
ORDER

1. Allowed,subjectto allJust exceptions. W.P.(C)4264/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the captioned writ petitions, inter alia, impugning the list ofdisqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extentthat it includes the names ofthe petitioners.

3. The petitioners claim thatthey were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name:Breekon Peaks Impex Private Limited(hereinafter referred to as "Company"). Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company's financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions oflaw. The petitioners aver that it is on account ofthe aforementioned infraction oflaw that their names came to be included in the impugned list,

4. 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.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner 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 Benchjudgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions

(i) The operation oflist ofdisqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of

W.P.(C)4264/2018& connected matters 2of[4] the name(s)ofthe writ petitioner(s)is eoncerned,shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC ofthe 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 ofhard copies. y (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 ofthe ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way ofFDR,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.

7. The writ petitioner will abide by the Division Beneh-1 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 OfIndia and Ors.

8. 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 Benchjudgment.

9. Needless to say,the disposal ofthe writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

3,620 characters total

10. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck offfrom the Register of Companies,resulting in the inclusion ofthe petitioners'names in the impugned list IF.P. (C)4264/20IS& connected mutters 3of[4] H of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessaiy consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

11. Pending application(s),ifany,shall stand closed.

12. Dasti under signatures ofthe Court master.