← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/11608/2017

Deep Bansal v. Union Of India And ORS.

2017-12-22Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru3 pages

$~30 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11608/2017 DEEP BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr Rupendra Pratap Singh, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr Satyendra Kumar, Advocate SCGC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 22.12.2017 CM 47265/2017 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 11608/2017 & CM 47264/2017 3.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a "lists of disqualified directors" published by respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners. 4.

The petitioner claim that he is a directors of a private company named Earthmatica Engineers Private Limited (hereafter 'the Company'). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner unequivocally states that the Company has not carried on any business and has not opened any bank account. The petitioner also did not file the requisite returns as required under the Companies Act, 2013 (hereafter 'the Act'). Consequently, the petitioner has incurred the disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Act.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes an unequivocal statement, on instruction of the petitioner, that the petitioner is desirous of availing of the Condonation of Delay Scheme -2018 (hereafter 'CODS - 2018'). However, since the Company has been struck off from the Register of Companies, he has been disabled from availing the benefits of CODS - 2018.

6.

The petitioner is also not in a position to seek revival of the Company by filing an appeal under Section 252 of the Act as, admittedly, the Company has not carried out any business and was liable to be struck off from the Register. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that, in fact, the petitioner would voluntarily seek dissolution of the Company under Section 248(2) of the Act, if he is given an opportunity to do so. 7.

This Court is of the view that since the Company has not carried on any business and has not opened a bank account, the petitioner ought to be provided the benefit of the CODS - 2018. Accordingly, this Court directs as under:- (a) The petitioners may file all the requisite returns in relation to the Company to avail the CODS - 2018.

(b) The petitioners may also file the necessary resolutions and documents for voluntarily striking off the name of the Company as required under Section 248(2) of the Act.

(c) The petitioners would also make a necessary application under CODS - 2018 along with the requisite charges.

(d) The aforesaid documents and applications will not be submitted

online but in hardcopies to the Registrar of Companies. 8.

The Registrar shall scrutinize the same, and if the same is found to be otherwise in accordance with Section 248(2) of the Act, the petitioner would be granted the benefit of the CODS - 2018. The removal of the Company from the Register under Section 248(1) of the Act would be deemed to be under Section 248(2) of the Act, and the petitioner's application under CODS - 2018 would be sympathetically considered by the Registrar. 9.

Since an unequivocal statement has been made by the petitioner that he would pay the necessary charges and make the necessary application under the CODS - 2018, the impugned list of the disqualified directors, in as much as it includes the name of the petitioner, is stayed till 31.03.2018 or till such time as the respondents take a final decision on the matter. 10.

This order has been passed with due assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. 11.

It is further clarified that the aforesaid order is made on the basis of the unequivocal statements made on behalf of the petitioner and in the event the statements are found to be incorrect, the petitioners would be liable to be proceeded against for contempt of court in addition to being subjected to other proceedings.

13.

The petition and the pending application are disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 22, 2017 pkv