Satender Kumar Jain v. Union Of India And ORS.

$~20 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11664/2017 & CM No.47402/2017 SATENDER KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Vivek Kohli, Mr Gaurav Verma and Ms Neetika Bajaj, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr Prasanta Varma, Senior Central Govt.

Counsel with Ms Shalu Goswami, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 11.01.2018 1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned list of disqualified directors as published by the respondents to the extent it includes the petitioner's name.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was never a Director of the company - M/s SRP Builders Limited (respondent no.3) - and, therefore, including the petitioner's name as a disqualified Director on the ground of any default committed by the said company is unsustainable. He further states that some document had been filed with the ROC indicating the petitioner to be a Director; however, that was forged document and a complaint in that regard had been made to the ROC, which is still pending.

3.

In the peculiar facts of this case, this Court considers it apposite that the present petition be considered as a representation by the Registrar of Companies (ROC). The ROC is directed to consider the same and pass a speaking order as expeditiously as possible.

4.

The impugned list to the extent it includes the petitioner's name is set aside. The same would be subject to any further order that may be passed by the ROC.

5.

This order is also subject to the petitioner making an appropriate application within a period of two weeks from today. 6.

The petition along with application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 11, 2018 MK