Sunil Sharma & Anr v. Registrar of Companies & Ors

1. Allowed, subject to all just exemptions. W.P. (C) 1822/2018, CM APPL.7527/2018 (stay)

2. Issue notice. Mr. Rajesh Kumar accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of another Single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2017 passed in W.P.(C)11381/2017 titled: Sandeep Singh and Anr. v. Registrar of 2018:DHC:1410 Companies and Ors. Learned counsel says that the issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is similar to the issue which arises in Sandeep Singh (supra). This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. Therefore, according to me, giving time to file the counter affidavit will not serve any purpose as the stand of the respondents in this case is no different which was taken in Sandeep Singh (supra).

4. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as directors on the board of a company by the name of Indica AO Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (in short “IAPL”). Since financial statements and requisite annual returns were not filed by IAPL for more than three years, its name was removed from the Register of Companies. 4.[1] Consequently, the petitioners’ name was included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial years 2014- 16 i.e., Annexure P-4.

5. Counsel for the petitioners says that apart from anything else, the impugned order is unsustainable in view of the fact that no notice was given to the petitioners before including their names in the list of disqualified directors. 5.[1] It is further submitted that the impugned order has impacted the petitioners’ role as directors in other companies which are fully active and functional. 5.[2] For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to paragraph 4 of the writ petition. 5.[3] Furthermore, the petitioners state that they wish to approach the Registrar of Companies (“ROC”) i.e., respondent no.1 for having the name of IAPL removed from the Register of Companies. For this purpose, the petitioners say that they would take recourse to provisions of Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and would like to rely upon the directives contained in Sandeep Singh. 5.[4] The petitioners also submit that they would like to take benefit of the provisions of the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (in short “Scheme”). Counsel for the petitioners says that requisite steps in that behalf will be taken within a period of two weeks from today.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the directives contained in the judgment of this Court rendered in Sandeep Singh (supra), this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) Directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra)

(ii) The petitioners will take requisite steps under

(iii) Pending consideration of the petitioners’ request, the operation of the impugned list insofar as the petitioners are concerned shall remain stayed till 31.3.2018 or till such time their request is disposed of whichever is later.

(iv) In order to facilitate this exercise, the respondents will also activate the petitioners’ DIN and DSC. This leave way will be available only if the petitioners adhere to the timeline set out above.

6. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

7. No costs.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY 26, 2018 /vikas/