W.P.(C)/2440/2018 of SANDEEP KUMAR ARORA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Parties
- SANDEEP KUMAR ARORA (PETITIONER)
- UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2440/2018 and CM No.10122/2018
Date of decision : 23[rd] March, 2018
SANDEEP KUMAR ARORA ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Alok Kumar Kuchhal, Mr. Manish Jain and Ms. Chanchal Yadav, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
..... Respondents Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC.
CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The petitioner was the Director of Strydz Corporate Services Private Limited. The Director of the company had submitted his resignation to the Board of Directors on 15[th] December, 2009. However, the Board of Directors failed to file Form 32 with the Registrar of Companies.
2. The writ petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of the notices dated 6[th] September, 2017 and 12[th] September, 2017 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs at New Delhi.
W.P.(C)No.2440/2018 Page 1 of 2
3. At the time of issuance of notices in this writ petition, we had granted interim stay of the impugned notices. As result the DIN number of the petitioner was restored.
4. In this background, the petitioner had ceased to be the Directors of the company, as stated by him, on 15[th] December, 2009 and could not have been penalized for the failure of the company to effect statutory compliances.
5. In view of the above, it is directed as follows :
(i) The respondents shall forthwith take steps for removal of the petitioner’s name from the list of disqualified directors.
(ii) The orders to this effect would be posted on the website and shall also be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from today.
(iii) It is clarified that this would not preclude the Registrar of Companies from passing fresh order disqualifying the petitioner, if any material is found or produced before the ROC to indicate
that the petitioner’s statement that the petitioner had never consented
to act as Director of the Company, is false, or any material is produced which establishes that the petitioner had acted as Director of the Company in any manner.
6. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
7. Dasti.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MARCH 23, 2018/aj
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
W.P.(C)No.2440/2018 Page 2 of 2