Sameerramkumar Verma v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Allowed, subject to alljust exc^ptifesC W.P.rC) No.2142/2018 '

2. Issue notice. Mr. Rohit Sarojj-w& appears respondent No.l and 2, accepts notice. 2.[1] Learned counsel for the petitioner.says thatthe'iiss^ which arises for consideration in this case is covered 'by the judgment of another Single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2017, passed in W.P.(C)11275/2017 titled: Harpreet Singh Batra & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. Therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit would serve no r^; T W.P. (C) No.2155 of2018 Pg. 1 of[4] 2018:DHC:8573 purpose as the stand of the respondents is the same as in HarpreetSingh Batra (supra).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Director on the Board of the Company by the name Modem Transit Solutions Private Limited (MTSPL) and Avendus Engineering Private Limited (AEPL). The names of MTSPL and AEPL were struck off from the Register of Companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial statements and annual returns.:

4. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner.i& a Director on the Boards ofthe following companies, whiclisir^active and function^:, i

(i) Global Transit Solutions,Priyate'timited

(ii) Aristocratic Hospitality^ Private Limited.

(iii) SaineeColourchem (India)PfivaJterLiriiited.

(iv) Sandstorm Properties Priy^&sLim|te^

(v) Asmi colourchem (Ihdia)l^riiyateifciM^^

4.[1] Counsel for the petitioner s a y s ' s name was included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial years 2014-16, his role as ^a.Director is impeded ?insofar as the abovementioned active companies are 6oiicemed: • 4.[2] Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner does not wish to revive MTSPL and AEPL, he would take steps under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in Harpreet Singh Batra (supra). W.P. (C) No.2155 of2018 Pg. 2 of[4].s \ 4.[3] Furthennore, counsel for the petitioner says that he would also like to avail the benefit ofthe Condonation ofDelay Scheme, 2018.

5. Having regard to the assertions made in the petition and the records which are presently available with me, I am ofthe view that this petition can be disposed ofwith the direction that respondents will follow the directives contained in Harpreet Singh Batra (supra). It is made clear that the directives contained therein will apply to the petitioner mutatis mutandis. j" ''/''--, 5.[1] The petitioner will, however, take steps both in consonanceyiX^ith the provisions of Section 248 (2) ofthe Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme;,-^018 within la period of two weeks from today.., ' 5.[2] In order to facilitate this exerbise,:6pera|io^ ofthe impugned list, insofar as it concerns the petitioner,,wife^reni^in stayed till 31.3.2018 or, till such time the respondents t^e requisite decision'with regard to the request ofthe petitioner made tq^hem in consonance with the provisions under Section 248 (2) of the CompMes-ict,-"2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018. 5.[3] Needful will be done tiyffthejptMqne]^ weeks from today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar of Companies will also activate the petitioner's DIN and DSC.

6. It is also made clear that the aforesaid order will be subject to the final outcome of the appeals which, I am told, are pending before Division Bench-I W.P. (C) No.2155 of2018 Pg. 3 of[4]

7. Dasti.

MARCH 09, 2018 W.P.(C)No.2155of2018. <-• ^: 5 \(o^ RAJIV SHAKDHER, J •.•'.r: r ' •• •::r '.V.!'•:v '-*•,).t,:- • - i '• - •J J-i "•; •? •r: >,•• - •••

13. »#, i'..',.^vv-r r-':l-. Pg. 4 of[4]