Surinder Singh v. Union Of India And ORS.

$~115 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4238/2018 & CM APP Nos.16590-91/2018 SURINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through :

Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

% 26.04.2018 CM APP No.16590/2018 1.

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4238/2018 & CM APP No.16591/2018 2.

Issue notice. Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents.

3.

Counsels are agreed that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the order dated 20.04.2018 passed in various writ petitions including W.P.(C) No.3887/2018, titled: Prabuddha Choudhury. Vs Registrar of Companies and Anr. In sum, the petitioner seeks to revive the subject companies by filing an appeal, if not already filed, before the NCLT under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. 4.

Counsel for the petitioner says that qua the subject companies i.e.,

i.

Dynamic Finvest Services Private Limited ii.

Kala Realtech Private Limited iii.

Akshaj Properties Private Limited iv.

Akshaj Estates Private Limited v.

Akshaj Builders Private Limited he seeks application of the directives contained in the aforementioned order, insofar as it concerns the petitioner.

4.1 To be noted, the captioned writ petition was heard on 25.04.2018, wherein at request of the counsel for the petitioners, the matter was renotified for 26.4.2018.

4.2 It is in this background that petitioners have filed affidavits dated 26.04.2018 5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the official respondents to apply the directives contained in Prabuddha Choudhury (Supra).

6.

It is made clear that the directions contained in aforementioned order will apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioner(s) herein. 7.

It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the ones mentioned in paragraph 4 above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance. 8.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed. 9.

Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J APRIL 26, 2018/mk