Rajiv Khanna and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

1 Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions. W.P.(CJ 27AS/2018.CM APPL.9317/2018(sta:

2. Issue notice. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, who appears for respondent no.1&2accepts notice. 1 1 Learned counseiforthepetitionerssaysthattheissuewhicharises for consideration in this case is covered by the judgment of another Single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2017, passed m W.P.{C)11381/2017, titled: Sandeep Singh & Anr. v. Registrar of W.P.(C)2255/2018 Page 1 of[4] 2018:DHC:8574 Companies& Ors. and in W.P.(C)837/2018,titled:JyotiJindal v. UOI& Anr. This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent no.l&2. Therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit would serve no purpose as the stand ofthe respondent no.l&2 is the same as in Sandeep Singh &Anr. and JyotiJindal(supra). ) 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Directors on the Board ofthe Company by the name Jukaso Hotels Pvt. O Ltd.('JHPL'). The name ofJHPL was struck offfrom the Register of Companies on account offailure to file'theirequisite financial statements and annual returns. ■ ':' L T r- ^ 2.[1] Furthermore, the petitioners, submitted'that JHPL had not been carrying on businessfor more thanthree years.. ■

3. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioners are also Directors i; y on the Boards of the following,cohipariie,§, which are active and functional: T/ T (i)Cork ProductsPvt.Ltd. (ii)Jukaso ResortsPvt.Ltd. ■ - (iii)Jukaso Facility ManagementPvt.Ltd. (iv)Jukaso Barter Pvt.Ltd."

3.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioners' names were included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial years 2012-14, their role as Directors is impeded insofar as the other companies are concerned which are active and running. O W.P.(C)2255/2018 Page2of[4] \

3.2. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do not wish to revive JHPL,they would take steps under Section 248(2)ofthe Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in SandeepSingh andJyotiJindal(supra). 3.[3] Furthermore, counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners would also like to availthe benefitofthe Condonation ofDelay Scheme,

2018.

4. Having regard to the assertions made in the petition and the records which are presently available with me,Iam ofthe view thatthis petitioncanbedisposedofwiththedirectionthatrespondentswillfollow the directivescontained inSandeepSingh andJyotiJindal(supra). Itis made clear that the directives contained therein will apply to the mutatis mutandis. 4.[1] The petitioners will,however,take steeps both,in consonance with theprovisionsofSection248(2)oftheCompaniesAct,2013andunder the Condonation ofDelay Scheme,201^wijhip a period often days from today. 4.[2] In orderto facilitatethis exercise,operation oftheimpugned hs, insofarasitconcernsthepetitioners,willremainstayedtill31,3.2018or, tillsuchtimetherespondentno,l&2takerequisitedecision withregard. to the request ofthe petitioners made to them in consonance with the provisionsunderSection248(2)oftheCompaniesAct,2013andun er the CondonationofDelay Scheme,2018. Page3of[4] W.P.(C)2255/2018 V U 4.[3] Needful will be done bythe petitioners within ten daysfrom today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar of Companies will also activate the petitioners'DIN and DSC.

5. It is made clear thatthe aforesaid order will be subjectto the final outcome of the appeals which, I am told, are pending before Division Bench-I.

6. Consequently CM APPL.9317/2018 shall stand closed. t 7. Dasti. \/v 1 ^^ RAJIV SHAKDHER,J MARCH 12,2018 IvikasI W.P.