RAVI KIRAN KATHA AND ANR vs UNION OF INDIA

REKHA PALLI, J.

1.At the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad, 2nd Floor, Corporate Bhavan, GSI Post, Thatti

Annaram, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500068 is impleaded as Respondent No. 2.Â

2.Amended memo of parties is taken on record.Â

3.The petitioners have filed the present petition impugning a list of disqualified directors to the extent that it includes the names of both the

petitioners. The petitioners claim that M/s Callosmart Solutions Private Limited was incorporated on 22nd June, 2007, of which both the petitioners

were directors. He, however, submits that the said company could not carry out business and, therefore, has been non-functional from the year

2010 itself. Â

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that another company named Dotcastle Technosolutions Private Limited was incorporated on

31st January, 2013, with both the petitioners as its directors. He submits that even the said company is non-functional since the year 2015, and the

Bank account of the said company already stands closed. He submits that in these circumstances, the company’s financial statements and

statutory returns have not been filed. He further draws my attention to the notice dated 21st July, 2017, whereby the names of the aforesaid two

companies, were struck off from the Register of the Companies and the said companies stood dissolved. Learned counsel for the petitioners

contends that it is on account of the aforementioned reasons that the petitioners’ names came to be included in the impugned list, even though both

the aforesaid companies of which the petitioners were directors, already stood dissolved on 21st July, 2017 itself.

5.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issues raised in the present petition are similar to issues pending before the Division Bench in

various matters including the lead matter being WP(C) No.9439/2017 titled as Atul Khosla & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

6.In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the present writ petition be disposed of by passing similar directions as have

been passed by the Division Bench by way of interim directions. He submits that both the petitioners undertake to abide by the order dated

21.03.2018 passed by the Division Bench in W.P. (C) 9439/2017. He, however, prays that the petitioners may be granted liberty to revive the present

petition in case, the issues raised by them are not addressed to their satisfaction by the decision to be taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid

matter. Â

7.Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i)The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii)The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii)The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereinafter “Schemeâ€), Permission is granted

to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies.

(iv)The writ petitioner(s) will deposit, if not deposited already, a sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary

striking off are required to be taken. The said amount in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in favour of the ROC, will be deposited with the

Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. Â

8.The writ petition and applications are disposed of in the aforesaid directions. However, both the parties would be at liberty to approach this Court

for revival of the petition in case the issues raised by them are not covered by the final decision of the Division Bench in WP(C) No.9439/2017.

DASTI under signatures of Court Master. Â