Neha Gupta and Anr. v. Registrar of Companies and Ors.

1. Allowed, subject to alljust exceptions.." W.P. (O 2124/2018. CM APPL. 8813/2018

2. Issue notice. Mr. Gogna, who appears- for respondents, accepts notice. -, "6^ 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the issue 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, (Cj 2124/2018 ^ 2018:DHC:8568 s ' 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 of the respondents is the same as in Sandeep Singh& Anr. (supra).

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Directors on the Board ofthe Company by the name Vigor Automations ^ Private Limited (VAPL). The name of YAPL was struck off from the ^ Register ofCompanies on account offailure to file the requisite financial statements and annual returns.. 4. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioners are Directors on the Boards ofthe following companies^ which are active and functional:

(i) Power Concept India Private Limited.;

(ii) Solar Concept India Private Liniited; •

4.[1] Furthermore, I am informed that petitioiiel* no.2 is also a Director on the Board of Maxwatt Electric PriyatejliiniteivjW^ is also active and functional. h 4.[2] Counsel for the petitioners says that since petitioners' names were included in the impugned list of disqualified '4ijeQtor$: for the financial years 2014-16, their role as Directors is impeded insofar as the other companies are concerned, which are active and running.

4.3. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do not wish to revive VAPL, they would take steps under Section 248 (2) ofthe W.P. (C) 2124/2018 V, "7 Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in Sandeep Singh &Anr. (supra). 4.[4] Furthermore, counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners 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 of the view that this petition can be disposed ofwith the direction that respondents will follow the'directives contained in Scmde^^Sin^?^^ made clear that the directives contained therein' will:,appy^-tdi^ mutatis mutandis. 5.[1] The petitioner will, however^i take stepsbp in consonance with 4'i- J:\ the provisions of Section 248 (2) of'the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation ofDelay Scheniepf,|.i^8:.^\i^i^8^.;%^riod oftwo weeks from today. '• 5.[2] In order to facilitate this.e|feFCise;|,operati^^ impugned list, insofar as it concerns thepetitioners, wtteintfm^ till 31.3.2018 or, till such time the respondents take requisite decision with regard to the 'f':.',. • ^ %:} request ofthe petitioners made-t^1hei^'^'^^nsoiip]|||^ the provisions • "rj ij ^ • under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation ofDelay Scheme, 2018. 5.[3] Needful will be done by the petitioners within two weeks from today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.l/Registrar of Companies will also activate the petitioners DIN and DSC. W.P. (C) 2124/2018 Pages f

6. It is also made clear thatthe aforesaid order will be subject to the final outcome of the appeals which, I am told, are pending before Division Bench 1.

7. Consequently CM APPL.8813/2018 shall stand closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J