Full Text
$-17 ■ \ , HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)3581/2018& CM Nos.14160-61/2018
Date ofdecision ;13*''April,2018 SANJAYKAUSHIK .....Petitioner
, Through Mr. Nikhil .'Kumar and Ms.Kamna Singh,Advs.
■ •
UNhON OFINDIA AJSrp ORSr\ , ..... Respondents
Through- Swarup Shukla, CGSG with,;]^^
■■ CORAM: . t
HON'BLE THE ACTINfefcfflEFJUSTICE
HON'BLEMR.JU^qj|cM%^ANl^
, ■ ■■ ■ JUDGMI^TMite ' ; ■
GITA MITTAL,ACTING CHIEFSuMtCE CM Nos.14160/2018{exemption)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed subjectto alljust-e^epti^y
2. Application stands disposed of. ' W.P.(CI3581/2018
3. Issue notice to the respondents as to why rule nisi be notissued.
4. Mr.Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, learned CGSG accepts notice on behalfofrespondent Union ofIndia.
5. The petitioner was the Director of Realpro Estates Private Limited and had submitted his resignation to the Board ofDirectors On W.P.(C)No.2440/2018 Page 1 of[3] 2018:DHC:8893-DB 10'^ December,2010. However,the Board ofDirectors failed to take requisite steps for informing the Registrar of Companies. The respondents are notin a position to deny this position.
6. The writ petitioner inter alia seeks quashing ofthe notices dated 6^^ September,2017 and 12'*^,September,2017 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs at New Delhi by, way of which he stood disqualified from performing as a Director in any company.
7. In this background,as the petitioner had ceased to be a Director ofthe Company,as stated by him,,on 10^*" December,2010 we could not have been penalized for the _,failure of the company to effect statutory compliances.,, •'
8. In view ofthe above,it is.directed as follows:
(i) The respondents,shall,forthwith take steps for removal of the petitioner's nanre from the list ofdisqualified directors and to alienate his DIN.
(ii) The orders to this effedtr,W(Md?bq^:p>^ on the website and shall also be communicated td'the'petitidrier within two weeks from today.
(iii) It is clarified that- this vvo.uld.not;preclude the Registrar of
Companies from passing a fresh order disqualifying the petitioner, if any material is found or produced before the ROC to indicate that the petitioner's statement that the petitioner had never consented to act as a Director ofthe Company,is false, or any material is produced which establishes that the petitioner had acted as a Director ofthe Company in any manner.
9. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms., W.P.(C)No.2440/2018 Page 2of[3] CM No.14161/2018(for stay)
10. In view of the writ petition being allowed, the application for stay does notsurvive for adjudication and is disposed ofas such. Dasti.
APRIL 13,2018/rk ACTMG C JUSTICE R7J C.HARIS ■: • ' 'a... -./iC