Harish Sharma v. Union Of India & ANR

$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4463/2018, CM No.17230-17231/2018 HARISH SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Vaibhav Gupta, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondent Through Mr.Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI & ROC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

O R D E R

% 27.04.2018 In this petition the petitioner are challenging the list updated on 2nd May, 2017 by the respondents containing the name of disqualified directors on the website of respondent No.1 qua the petitioner for violation of Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act.

Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter "scheme"). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies.

(iv) The writ petitioner(s) will deposit a sum of 30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause(iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in a batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) No.9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union Of India and Ors. Liberty, however, is given to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

YOGESH KHANNA, J APRIL 27, 2018 VLD