Sandeep Jain & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors

Rajiv Shakdher, J

CM APPL.8449/2018 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P. (C) 2051/2018, CM APPL.8448/2018

Issue notice. Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, who appears for respondents, accepts notice.

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.(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).

It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of Ika Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (“IMPLâ€). Petitioner no.2 was

also appointed as Director on the Board of Ishika Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (“IAPLâ€​) The names of IMPL and IAPL were struck off from the Register

of Companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial statements and annual returns.

3.1 Furthermore, the petitioners submitted that IMPL and IAPL had not been carrying on business for more than three years.

Besides this, I am informed that insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they are also Directors on the Boards of the other companies, which are

active and functional as mentioned in Annexure P-7 (collectively).

4.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners’ names were included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial

years 2014-16, their role as Directors is impeded insofar as the other companies are concerned which are active and running (Annexure P-7

collectively).

4.2. Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do not wish to revive IMPL and IAPL, they would take steps under Section 248 (2) of

the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra).

4.3 Furthermore, counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners would also like to avail the benefit of the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

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 of with the direction that respondents will follow the directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra). It is made clear that the directives

contained therein will apply to the petitioner mutatis mutandis.

5.1 The petitioners will, however, take steps both in consonance with the provisions of Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the

Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 within a period of ten days from today.

5.2 In order to facilitate this exercise, operation of the impugned list, insofar as it concerns the petitioners, will remain stayed till 31.3.2018 or, till such

time the respondents take requisite decision with regard to the request of the petitioners made to them in consonance with the provisions under Section

248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

5.3 Needful will be done by the petitioners within ten days from today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar of Companies

will also activate the petitioners’ DIN and DSC.

Consequently CM-8448/2018 shall stand closed.

Dasti.