A pending review petition does not suspend compliance with a subsisting court judgment.

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 29 April 2026 in W.P.(C) 11302/2023.

In that judgment, the Court had held that the Registrar of Companies’ action in striking the petitioner-company’s name from its website was void ab initio because the notification referred to a different Company Identification Number (CIN), and that the striking-off was therefore improper.

Despite the judgment, the company’s name had not been restored on the ROC website.

The respondent submitted that an appeal against the judgment had been withdrawn on 24 August 2026 with liberty to file a review petition, and argued that restoration could not be undertaken while the review was proposed to be filed.

The petitioner stated that, under the MCA Circular dated 24 February 2026, certain compliances were required by 31 August 2026, which could be completed only if the company was shown as active on the MCA website.

The Assistant Registrar of Companies informed the Court that approvals at different levels would be required to implement the restoration.

1. Whether the respondent could withhold compliance with the subsisting judgment dated 29 April 2026 merely because a review petition was proposed to be filed.

2. Whether the respondent should forthwith restore the petitioner-company’s name in the ROC records and reflect its status as an active company on the MCA website.

The Court applied the principle that a subsisting judgment or court order must be complied with by the concerned governmental authority and other parties unless its operation has been stayed or modified by a competent court.

The mere filing, or proposed filing, of an appeal or review petition does not suspend the obligation to comply with the judgment.

The Court also applied the principle that implementation may be made subject to any subsequent order passed in a review petition, thereby safeguarding the respondent’s position.

The underlying judgment had conclusively held that the striking-off of the petitioner-company was void ab initio because the ROC notification contained an incorrect CIN.

Since that judgment remained operative and had not been stayed, the respondent was legally required to restore the company’s name.

The proposed review petition did not constitute a ground for non-compliance.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s time-sensitive statutory or regulatory compliances under the MCA Circular, which required the company to be reflected as active by 31 August 2026.

Accordingly, the Court directed immediate restoration while protecting the respondent by making the restoration subject to any order passed in the proposed review proceedings.

It directed the respondent to forthwith restore the petitioner-company’s name in the ROC records and show the company as active on the MCA website, subject to any order that may subsequently be passed in the review petition.

The Assistant Registrar of Companies was requested to cooperate with the petitioner’s counsel regarding any technical glitches in uploading documents or updating the Master Data.

The contempt petition and pending application were disposed of, and the next date of hearing was cancelled.