Subhlabh Steels Pvt. Limited And ANR. v. Union Of India, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs And ANR.

$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2677/2018 with CM. APPL. 10956/2018 SUBHLABH STEELS PVT. LIMITED AND ANR...... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND ANR.

..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC, Mr. Sahil Sood, Mr. Harshul Chaudhary, for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

% 20.03.2018 1.

Issue Notice. Mr. Kirtiman Singh accepts notice on behalf of UOI.

2.

The reliefs claimed in the writ petition are as follows: "a. Issue appropriate writ/order/direction declaring the decision of the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the list of shell companies without any qualification and/or reasonable criteria and without any opportunity to show cause is illegal, null, void, ultra vires, unconstitutional and also declare the same to be in violation of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and hence ultra vires.

b. Issue a writ of certiorari and/or writ/order/direction in the nature thereof calling for the record of the decision taken by the respondents to include the name of the petitioner company in the list of shell companies, so that upon perusal thereof, this Hon'ble Court may

quash the same;

c. Issue writ of mandamus and/or writ/order/direction in the nature thereof directing the respondent to withdraw their decision to include the name of the petitioner company in the list of shell companies;

d. Issue a writ of prohibition and/or writ/order/direction in the nature thereof prohibiting the respondent from acting upon and/or given effect to the decision to include the name of the petitioner in the list of shell companies"

3.

Ms. Acharya, learned ASG who appears on behalf of the respondents says that the writ petition is pre-mature as the respondents have not published as yet the list of so-called shell companies which is appended as annexure P-1 to the instant writ petition.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner company having heard the submission of the learned ASG, says that he does not wish to press the writ petition any further.

5.

I may also indicate that the learned ASG, on instructions, says that no directions have been issued to banks based on the purported list, which, as indicated above, is marked as annexure P-1. 6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

7.

In case, any coercive measures are taken by the respondents, the petitioner will have liberty to approach this Court. 8.

Dasti.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MARCH 20, 2018 Nk