Delhi HC Dismisses Willingdon Cup Plea As Withdrawn After Flagging Undisclosed Company Strike-Off And An “Apparently False” Board Resolution

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petition could proceed where it did not disclose that the company associated with the claim had been struck off, and it relied on a board resolution that appeared inconsistent with that status and its stated date.

The court held

The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn after counsel’s apology and assurance.

It also directed

It clarified that it had not considered the merits of the grievance against DDCA and expressed no opinion on them.

01Facts

The petitioner said that the DDCA had granted sanction/affiliation on 25 August 2020 for a proposed T-20 tournament and that ₹1,00,000 was paid as the sanction/licence fee.

¶ 2–3

The tournament was not held, and the petitioner sought directions concerning permissions, facilities, player-related information and NOCs.

¶ 2–3

The petition named Ms. Ghuman, but parts of it described D.R. Tigers Pvt. Ltd. as a co-petitioner.

¶ 8–14

DDCA produced records showing that the company had been struck off in 2022; the petition did not disclose this.

¶ 8–14

It also relied on a purported board resolution dated 20 May 2026, although the signatures bore the date 10 August 2024.

¶ 8–14

After the Court questioned these matters, counsel apologised and sought withdrawal of the petition.

¶ 16–18

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petition could proceed where it did not disclose that the company associated with the claim had been struck off, and it relied on a board resolution that appeared inconsistent with that status and its stated date.

¶ 8–15

ii.2. Whether the Court should permit withdrawal of the petition, and what order should follow.

¶ 6, 17–20

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Sections 248(1) and 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, in considering the company’s removal from the register of companies.

¶ 9

It emphasised the need for relevant facts to be disclosed and pleadings and documents filed before the Court to be duly verified.

¶ 10, 15, 18

The Court did not cite any precedent or determine the legal effect of the company’s striking off on the underlying claim.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Companies Act, 2013 Section 248

04Reasoning

The records before the Court showed that D.R. Tigers Pvt. Ltd. had been struck off in 2022, well before the petition was filed in 2026, yet neither the petition nor the earlier legal notice disclosed that fact.

¶ 9–12

The petition’s references to the company, together with the purported 2026 board resolution bearing signatures dated 2024, raised serious concerns about the accuracy and verification of the filed material.

¶ 12–15

The Court expressly declined to conduct a forensic examination or determine whether a criminal offence had occurred.

¶ 15–18

In light of counsel’s apology and assurance of greater care, it did not pursue the matter further.

¶ 15–18

The Court did not examine the petitioner’s substantive grievance against DDCA.

¶ 20