Karanjit Singh Chopra v. Union of India and Ors.

1. Issue notice. Mr. Ravi Prakash, who appears for the respondents,accepts notice.

1.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the issue which arises for consideration in this case is covered by thejudgment of another Single Judge of this. Court dated 21.12.2017, passed in W.P.(C)11381/2017 titled: Sandeep Singh & Anr. v. Registrar of Companies & Ors. This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. Therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit would serve no purpose as the stand ofthe respondents is the same as in SandeepSingh &Anr.(supra).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a W.P.(C[3] 2166/2018 Page1of[3] 2018:DHC:8569 > Director on the Board of the Company by the name: Singler Technology Private Limited (STPL). The name of STPL was struck offfrom the Register ofCompanies on account offailure to file the requisite financial statements and armual returns. 2.[1] Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that STPL had not commenced operations since its incorporation.

3. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner is also Director on the Boards of the following companies, which are active and functional:

(i) NammoIndiaPrivate Limited(in short"NIPL")

(ii) Raaws AgenciesPrivate Limited(in short"RAPL")

3.1. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner's name was included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial years 2014-16, his role as Director is impeded insofar as the other companies are concerned which are active and functional.

3.2. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner does notwishto revive STPL,he would take steps under Section248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained inSandeepSingh(supra). 3.[3] Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner would also like to avail the benefit ofthe Condonation of Delay Scheme,2018.

4. Having regard to the assertions made in the petition and the records which are presently available with me,I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of with the direction that W.P.(C]2166/2018 ^ Page2of[3] respondents will follow the directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra). It is made clear that the directives contained therein will apply to the petitioner mutatis mutandis. 4.[1] The petitioner will, however,take steps both in consonance with the provisions ofSection 248(2)ofthe Companies Act,2013. and under the Condonation ofDelay Scheme,2018 within a period oftwo weeksfrom today. 4.[2] In orderto facilitate this exercise,operation ofthe impugned list, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, will remain stayed till 31.3.2018 or,till such time the respondents take requisite decision with regard to the request of the petitioner made to them in % consonance with the provisions under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme,2018. 4.[3] Needful will be done by the'petitioner within two weeks from today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.1/Registrar ofCompanies will also activate the petitioner's DIN and DSC.

5. It is also made clear that the aforesaid order will be subject to the final outcome ofthe appeals which,I am told, are pending before Division Bench-1.

6. Consequently CM No.8932/2018 shall stand closed.

7. Dasti.

RAJIV SHAKDHER,J MARCH 09,2018 mk