Full Judgment Text
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 28.2.2018
+ W.P. (C) 1939/2018, CM APPL.8047/2018
APOORV RANJAN SHARMA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sameer Rastogi with Mr.
Ankit Parashar, Ms. Pooja and
Mr. Yatin Sachdeva, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC for R1
and R2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.8047/2018 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 1939/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC, 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
W.P.(C) 1939/2018 Page 1 of 3
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 of the Company by the name PA Venture
Catalyst Pvt. Ltd. (“PAVC”). The name of PAVC was 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 PAVC had not been
carrying out business for more than seven years.
4. Besides this, I am informed that insofar as petitioner no.1 is
concerned, he is also a Director on the Boards of the following
companies, which are active and functional:
(i) Venture Catalysts Pvt. Ltd,
(ii) VPhrase Analytics Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
(iii) Recconext Labs Pvt. Ltd.
4.1 Counsel for the petitioners says that since 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.
4.2 Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners do not
wish to revive PAVC, 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.
W.P.(C) 1939/2018 Page 2 of 3
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 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 petitioners
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 two
weeks 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 two weeks from
today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar
of Companies will also activate the petitioners DIN and DSC.
6. Dasti .
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2018
/vikas/
W.P.(C) 1939/2018 Page 3 of 3