Renuka Datla v. Ministry Of Corporate Affairs And ORS.
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4417/2018, CM APP No. 17141/2018 RENUKA DATLA ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Azeem Samuel, Adv.
versus MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND ORS.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. P.S.Singh, Sr. Counsel with Ms. Annu, Adv. for R- 1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
% 07.05.2018 1.
Issue notice.
2.
Mr. P.S. Singh, learned Senior Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. The petitioner claims that she stands appointed on the Board of 15 companies and that out of the 15 companies qua 7 companies, she has been disqualified to act as a Director. The petitioner further claims that she has a management dispute with regard to the 7 companies, which are arrayed as respondent nos. 3 to 9 to the present petition. 3.
Pertinently, these 7 companies are active, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the master data available with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The names and the shareholding pattern of these 7 companies as adverted to by counsel for the petitioner is set out hereafter:
I. BE ANIMAL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED
1) Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla (deceased)
2) Dr. Renuka Datla/ Petitioner Lacto Cosmetics (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd.
20,500 Lacto Cosmetics (A.P) Pvt. Ltd.
10,250 Dr. (Mrs.) Indira P. Raju 29,550 Mr. P.V. Ranveer 1,200 61500 II. HIGH-TECH MEDICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VR Packing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
10,000 III. V. R. FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED
1) Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla (deceased)
2) Dr. Renuka Datla/ Petitioner
3) Mrs. Indira P. Raju
4) Mrs. Purnima Mantena
5) Mr. Datla Surya Satya Veera Venkata Varma Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla (deceased) 49700 50,000 Mrs. Indira P Raju 19 (Class-B) Total (Class-B) IV. V.R. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED
3) Mrs. Indira P Raju Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla (deceased) Mrs. Purnima Mantena 13700 Mrs. Indira P Raju 15000 Miss Mahima Datla 15000 50,000 Mrs. Purnima Mantena 30 (Class-B) Mrs. Indira P Raju 10 (Class-B) Miss Mahima Datla 10 (Class-B) Total (Class-B)
V. V.R. REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED
2) Mrs. Indira P Raju
3) Sree Rama Chandra Raju Sagi
4) Purnima Mantena Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla (deceased) Mrs. Purnima Mantena 15000 Mrs. Indira P Raju 15000 Miss Mahima Datla 15000 50,000 VI. EUREKA LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED
2) Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla (deceased) No information given VII. V.R. TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
No information given 4.
Counsel for the petitioner states that on account of the dispute that the petitioner has with her daughter, no filings were made qua the afore-mentioned 7 companies. It is stated that as a result of the same, the petitioner‟s name was included in the list of disqualified directors, which led to her DIN and DSC being de-activated. 5.
Mr. P.S.Singh, learned Senior Counsel who appears on behalf of the official respondents confirms that pursuant to the last order passed by this Court on 27th April, 2018, additional papers have been filed which do indicate that there is a dispute obtaining between the petitioner and her daughters.
6.
Learned counsel further submits that this matter needs to be enquired into by the ROC.
6.1 I tend to agree with the stand taken by the counsel for the official respondents.
7.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i) The petitioner will appear before the ROC on 25th May, 2018 at 11.00 PM.
ii) The ROC will consider the assertions made before this Court and the additional documents placed on record, which I am told, were filed on 5.5.2018 vide Diary No.126024. iii) The learned ROC, after hearing the petitioner and/or her
authorized representative, will pass a speaking order; a copy of which would be supplied to her and/or her authorized representative.
iv) In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the final determination made by the ROC she will have liberty to assail the same in the manner known to law.
v) Pending the aforesaid enquiry by the ROC, there shall be a stay on the operation of impugned list of disqualified directors insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Furthermore, the petitioner‟s DIN and DSC will be activated. The ROC will have the authority to vary or withdraw this facility in case the need arises qua the same.
8.
The pending application is, accordingly, closed. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MAY 07, 2018/ak