Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
R P STONE CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Khowel and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advs.
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Adv. for UOI with Mr. Gopal Singh, Dy. ROC.
1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the only outstanding grievance of the petitioner is that in the master data available with the respondents, the Corporate Identification Number (in short ‘CIN’) of the petitioner-company is noticed twice over. Learned counsel for the respondents says that out of the two CINs, only one CIN is active while the other clearly is not available for e-filing. 2018:DHC:1422 W.P.(C) 11672/2016
2. To be noted, master data reflects the following: CIN Company Name Status U85110DL1991PTC265676 R P STONE CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED ACTIVE U85110DL1991PTC044408 R P STONE CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED Not available for efiling
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that since the aforementioned extract shows that one of the two CIN numbers is not available for e-filing, it should not impact the interest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that as long as it does not come as a part of the order, the petitioner will be satisfied.
4. The CIN No.U85110DL1991PTC265676 shall remain active while the other CIN No.U85110DL1991PTC044408, as also indicated in the master data, will not be available for e-filing. The petitioner accordingly will use the former CIN number i.e., U85110DL1991PTC265676 for its filing.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned extract, which is taken on record.
RAJIV SHAKDHER (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 26, 2018 aj