Skip to content


Sushma Chadha vs.union of India and Anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
AppellantSushma Chadha
RespondentUnion of India and Anr.
Excerpt:
.....of another single judge of this court dated 21.12.2017, passed in w.p.(c)11381/2017 titled: sandeep singh & anr. v. registrar of companies & ors. this aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit would serve no w.p.(c)1937/2018 page 1 of 3 purpose as the stand of the respondents is the same as in sandeep singh & anr. (supra).2. it is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as director on the board of the company by the name gce solar (india) pvt. ltd. (for short “gces”). the name of gces was struck off from the register of companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial statements and annual returns. 2.1 furthermore, the petitioner submitted that (gces) had not been carrying out business for.....
Judgment:

$~33 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:

28. 2.2018 W.P. (C) 1937/2018, CM APPL.8044-8045/2018 SUSHMA CHADHA ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sakal Bhushan with Mr. Robin George and Mohd. Zeeshan Ansari, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC for UOI with Ms. Kaanan Gupta, Advocate. CORAM:-

"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER % RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

(ORAL) CM APPL.8045/2018 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P. (C) 1937/2018, CM APPL.8044/2018 (stay) 1. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, who appears for respondents, accepts notice. 1.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the issue which arises for consideration in this case is covered by the judgment of another Single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2017, passed in W.P.(C)11381/2017 titled: Sandeep Singh & Anr. v. Registrar of Companies & Ors. This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. Therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit would serve no W.P.(C)1937/2018 Page 1 of 3 purpose as the stand of the respondents is the same as in Sandeep Singh & Anr. (supra).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Director on the Board of the Company by the name GCE Solar (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for short “GCES”). The name of GCES was struck off from the Register of Companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial statements and annual returns. 2.1 Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that (GCES) had not been carrying out business for more than three years.

3. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner is also a Director on the Boards of the following companies, which are active and functional: (i) Orchid Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Greenland Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., (iii) Orchid Tradex Private Limited (iv) Orchid Auto Sales Lucknow Pvt. Ltd. (v) Orchid Auto Sales Jodhpur Pvt. Ltd. (vi) Freesia Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (vii) Greenland Telecom Services Pvt. Ltd (viii) Kartar Motor Punjab Pvt. Ltd. (ix) Greenland Automobiles Highway Services Pvt. Ltd. 3.1. Counsel for the petitioner says that since petitioner’s name was included in the impugned list of disqualified directors for the financial years 2014-16, her role as a Director is impeded insofar as the other companies are concerned which are active and running. 3.2. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner does not wish to revive GCES, she would take steps under Section 248 (2) of W.P.(C)1937/2018 Page 2 of 3 the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra). 3.3 Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner would also like to avail the benefit of the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

4. Having regard to the assertions made in the petition and the records which are presently available with me, I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of with the direction that respondents will follow the directives contained in Sandeep Singh (supra). It is made clear that the directives contained therein will apply to the petitioner mutatis mutandis. 4.1 The petitioner will, however, take steps both in consonance with the provisions of Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 within a period of two weeks from today. 4.2 In order to facilitate this exercise, operation of the impugned list, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, will remain stayed till 31.3.2018 or, till such time the respondents take requisite decision with regard to the request of the petitioner made to them in consonance with the provisions under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018. 4.3 Needful will be done by the petitioner within two weeks from today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.2/Registrar of Companies will also activate the petitioner’s DIN and DSC.

5. Consequently CM APPL.8044/2018 shall stand closed. W.P.(C)1937/2018 Page 3 of 3 6. Dasti. FEBRUARY28 2018/vikas/ RAJIV SHAKDHER, J W.P.(C)1937/2018 Page 4 of 3


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //