Sanjiv Nanda vs.union of India and Anr. - Court Judgment

$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:

13. 03.2018 + W.P.(C) 2179/2018 SANJIV NANDA ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Aaditya VijayKumar with Mr. Keith Vanghese, Advocates Through: Mr. C. George, Advocate ..... Respondent versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. CORAM:-

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

(ORAL) CM. APPL. 9001/2018 1. W.P.(C) 2179/2018 & CM. APPL. 9000/2018 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Issue notice. Mr. George, who appears for respondents, accepts notice. 2.1 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 W.P. (C) 2179/2018 Page 1 of 3 serve no purpose as the stand of the respondents is the same as in Sandeep Singh & Anr. (supra).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Director on the Board of the Company by the name Vista Kraft Paper Private Limited (VKPPL). The name of VKPPL was struck off from the Register of Companies on account of failure to file the requisite financial statements and annual returns.

4. Besides this, I am informed that the petitioner is also Director on the Boards of the following companies, which are active and functional: (see annexure P5) 4.1 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 his role as a Director is impeded insofar as the other companies are concerned which are active and running. 4.2 Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner does not wish to revive VKPPL he would take steps under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in consonance with the directives contained in Sandeep Singh & Anr. (supra). 4.3 Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner would also like to avail the benefit of the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

5. 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 W.P. (C) 2179/2018 Page 2 of 3 (supra). It is made clear that the directives contained therein will apply to the petitioner mutatis mutandis. 5.1 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 ten days from today. 5.2 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. 5.3 Needful will be done by the petitioner within ten days from today. In addition thereto, for the moment, respondent no.1/Registrar of Companies will also activate the petitioners DIN and DSC.

6. It is also made clear that the aforesaid order will be subject to the final outcome of the appeals which, I am told, are pending before the Division Bench - I.

7. 8. Consequently CM APPL. 9000/2018 shall stand closed. Dasti. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MARCH132018 Nk/cks W.P. (C) 2179/2018 Page 3 of 3