W.P.(C)/4571/2018 of MOHAK CHNAD GUPTA AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4571/2018

MOHAK CHNAD GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Kalia with Mr. Siddharth Nagpal, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17716/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4571/2018 & CM APP No.17715/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by the learned counsel for the official respondents that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: MNG Human Development Center Private Limited(hereinafter referred to as "Company"). Furthermore, the petitioners states that he had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that on account of the

aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4578/2018

DEEP CHOPRA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv.

..... Petitioners

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv. for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17730/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4578/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17729/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by the learned counsel for the official respondents that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Tranztrade Logistics Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company had not done any business for more than two years. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that on account of the

aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. To be noted, the petitioners have obtained the consent of the other persons who are not petitioners before this court but are Directors on the Board of the subject company.

5.1 It is in this background that the petitioners have filed affidavits dated 26.04.2018.

6. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

7. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with the operative directions contained in Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be

in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4577/2018

PRADIP KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY & ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Through: Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anju Gupta with Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj and Mr. R.L. Goel, Advs. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17728/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4577/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17727/2018

2. Issue notice. Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, says that he wishes to approach the NCLT for reviving company by the name: Mercury Cranes & Hoists Limited(hereinafter referred to as “Company”).

4. To be noted, the Company was struck off from the Register of Companies by the ROC upon its failure to file the requisite financial statements and returns. The petitioners, I am told, were appointed as Directors on the Board of the Company.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioners wish to approach the NCLT to revive the Company in consonance with the provisions of Section 252 of the

Companies Act, 2013, the learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the ROC will not oppose the revival provided the appeal is filed before 07.05.2018.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the NCLT by way of an appeal. Since the captioned Writ petition was filed on the day the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 ("Scheme") was to expire, leave is granted to the Petitioner(s) to institute the appeal with NCLT on or before 07.05.2018. Pending the decision in the appeal, there would be stay on the operation of the list of disqualified directors insofar as it concerns the petitioners herein. Furthermore, the respondents will also activate the DIN and DSC of the petitioners.

7. Needless to say if the petitioners fail to file an appeal within the timeline given above, or fails in persuading the NCLT to revive the Company, the stay on the operation of the list of disqualified directors, insofar as it concerns the petitioners, would stand dissolved automatically with necessary consequences. This direction would also apply if the petitioners fails to take requisite steps under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (“Scheme”) after it is ordered to be revived by NCLT.

8. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4576/2018

LAKHWINDER SINGH AND ORS. Through:

..... Petitioner

Mr. Gursat Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through:

..... Respondent

Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17726/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4576/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17725/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by the learned counsel for the official respondents that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Oncology Healthcare Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the company failed to generate any business since 2013. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that on account of the

aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4593/2018 GANAPATHI ARUMUGAM AND ANR.

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi with Ms. Preeti Kumra and Mr. Raj Rishi,

Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17754/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4593/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17753/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSCthat the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Integrated Bio Technologies India Private Limited(hereinafter referred to as "Company"). To be noted, counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 was appointed as Director on the Board of another company by the name: Maway Gold and Green Fuels Limited which was struck off by the ROC, and that writ petition has been filed before this Court in that behalf as well. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the

Company's financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official

respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not

covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4592/2018

GANAPATHI ARUMUGAM AND ORS. ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi with Ms. Preeti Kumra and Mr. Raj Rishi, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17752/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4592/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17751/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSCthat the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Maway Gold and Green Fuels Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company's financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver

that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

4.1 To be noted, counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 was appointed as Director on the Board of another company by the name: Integrated Bio Technologies India Private Limited which was struck off by the ROC, and that writ petition has been filed before this Court in that behalf as well.

4.2 Counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner no.3 was appointed as Director on the Board of another company by the name: RM Gold Private Limited which was struck off by the ROC, and that no steps have been taken by petitioner no.3 in that behalf.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s), except petitioner no.3, will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4591/2018

VIRENDRA SINGH AND ANR.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC

for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17750/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4591/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17749/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Bhardwaj, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Shishodia Cassette Industries Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the company failed to generate any business since 2012. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant

provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it was on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

10. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

11. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4582/2018

MUKESH GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Kalia with Mr. Siddharth Nagpal, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondent Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17735/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4582/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17734/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Shukla, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of

company by the name: Winsol Energy Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The Petitioners state that the Company had been non-operational subsequent to 2011-2012. Furthermore, the petitioners states that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4583/2018

ARVIND SRIVASTAVA & ANR ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gogna, CGSC for

R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17737/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4583/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17736/2018

2.The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Gogna, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of companies by the name: Money Real Estate Private Limited and Sprit Exim Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Companies"). The Petitioners state that the Companies had been non-operational since the last three years. Furthermore, the petitioners states that they had not filed the Companies' financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The

petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4584/2018 SAHEJ BAKSHI AND ANR.

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gursat Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17739/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4584/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17738/2018

2.The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Shukla, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of companies by the name: Double Vision Entertainment Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The Petitioners state that the Company had been non-operational since 2012. Furthermore, the petitioners states that they had not filed the Company's financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the

aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4585/2018

ANKUR GUPTA AND ORS. Through:

..... Petitioner

Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondent Through: Mr. B. S. Shukla, CGSC for

UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17741/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4585/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17740/2018

2.The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Shukla, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of companies by the name: Integrated Industrial Process Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The Petitioners state that the Company had been non-operational for more than three years. Furthermore, the petitioners states that they had not filed the Company's financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it

is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4586/2018

JETINDER PAL VERMA AND ANR. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17743/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4586/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17742/2018

2.The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Shukla, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of

companies by the name: Orchid IT Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The Petitioners state that the Company had been non-operational for more than three years. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company's financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the

aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not

covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4595/2018

MAYANK GUPTA AND ANR. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Kalia with Mr. Siddharth Nagpal, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17758/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4595/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17757/2018

2.The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Shukla, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of companies by the name: Aeon Infratech PrivateLimited(hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The Petitioners state that the Company had been non-operational since its incorporation. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company's financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by

this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C)

9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7883/2009

SHRI NAZVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amit for Ms. Sonali Malhotra,

Adv.

versus

NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Diwankar Sethi, Adv. for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for R-2/DSIIDC. Through: Mr. Diwankar Sethi, Adv. for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for R-2/DSIIDC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R01.05.201801.05.2018

Renotify the matter on 16.11.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

$~54 & 69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4539/2018 & CM. APPL. No.17533/2018

SANDHYA CHEMPLAST PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Sujata Kashyap with Mr. Ateka Khan, Advs.

versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD. AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur with Mr. Amit Gaur, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Abhinav Singh with Mr. Vinod Kr. Goyal and Mr. Mohit Aggarwal, Advs. for R-3.

+ W.P.(C) 4579/2018 & CM. APPL. No.17731/2018

SANSKRITI SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION,

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Sujata Kashyap with Mr. Ateka Khan, Advs.

versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD. AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur with Mr. Amit Gaur, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Abhinav Singh with Mr. Vinod Kr. Goyal and Mr. Mohit Aggarwal, Advs. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

W.P.(C) 4539/2018 & W.P.(C) 4579/2018

Pg.1 of 2

1. The grievance of the petitioners is that their matters are not being –heard by the District Consumer Forum VII, Delhi/respondent No.2 on account of inadequate staff.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Gaur accepts notice for respondent No.1, while Mr. Abhinav Singh accepts notice for respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 says that he will take instructions in the matter as to why adequate staff is not deployed at the concerned forum.

5. Renotify the matter on 27.8.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

W.P.(C) 4539/2018 & W.P.(C) 4579/2018 Pg.2 of 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4526/2018

SUNITA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Gupta with Mr. Parinav Gupta, Ms. Mansi Gupta and Mr. Moazzam Ali, Advs.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM. APPL.No.17504-05/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4526/2018 & CM. APPL. No.17506/2018

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Ghose accepts notice for the respondents. In view of the order that I propose to pass, Mr. Ghose says that he does not wish to file counter affidavit in the matter.

4. The limited relief that the petitioner seeks is the disposal of representation dated 5.4.2018, which is marked as Annexure P-9 and appended at pages 80 to 82 of the paper book.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to deliberate upon the aforementioned representation of the petitioner and, thereafter, pass speaking order qua the same.

W.P.(C) No.4526/2018

6. The concerned authority will also call upon the petitioner and/or her authorized representative for hearing in the matter before passing speaking order. copy of the speaking order will be furnished to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is aggrieved, she will be at liberty to assail the same in the manner known to law.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

W.P.(C) No.4526/2018

Pg.2 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3347/2018

DEEPAK DATWANI AND ANR. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Kalia with Mr. Siddharth Nagpal, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, Adv. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM. APPL.No.17501/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. P.S. Singh accepts notice for respondent No.1 & 2 and says he does not oppose the relief claimed in the application. The substantive relief claimed in the application is as follows:

“Allow the instant application by granting 15 days’ time to the Petitioners/Applicants in order to comply with the direction of this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 06.04.2018. ”

3. Accordingly, prayer made in the application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners will comply with the

directions contained in the order dated 6.4.2018, latest by, 15.5.2018.

5. Dasti.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6167/2011

LIFESTYLE BUILDCON (P) LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shreyans Singhvi with Ms. Nayantara and Ms. Mohita, Advs. Through: Mr. Shreyans Singhvi with Ms. Nayantara and Ms. Mohita, Advs.

versus

DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE

& ANR

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Dayan Krishanan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.S. Bawa, Adv. for the applicant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM. APPL. No.17507, 17575/2018

1. Mr. Krishanan, learned Senior Counsel who appears for the applicant, on instructions, says that since the main matter is coming up for hearing on 24.7.2018, the captioned applications be stood over till such date.

2. Accordingly, renotify the applications on 24.7.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4517/2018 NAFIS-UL-AFIIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. T.S. Ahuja with Mr. Varun Ahuja, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi with Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advs. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM. APPL. No.17348/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4517/2018 & CM. APPL. No.17347/2018

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Shiva Lakshmi accepts notice for the respondents.

4. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder,

if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

5. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioner will place on record the order passed by the Supreme Court in the proceedings taken out by the tenant quasubject premises.

6. To be noted, in this proceeding the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.5.2017.

6.1 By virtue of the impugned order the tenant, one, Mr. Vijay Sachdeva has been directed to deposit the rent for the period commencing from 10.9.1965 quathe portion of the subject property which is in his occupation, with the custodian of enemy property.

7. Renotify the matter on 11.9.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4515/2018 & CM. APPL. No.17345/2018

SWAROOP ROUND THE CLOCK CONVENIENCE STORE

..... Petitioner

Through: None.

versus

OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

01.05.2018

At request of Mr. Ghose, renotify the matter on 4.5.2018.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3611/2018

RAMA BALA

..... Petitioner

Through: Petitioner in person.

versus

DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL & ORS Through: None.

..... Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R01.05.2018

CM. APPL. No.17409/2018

1. Vide order dated 13.4.2018, I had issued notice only to respondent No.1 and 2. The main matter has been renotified on 31.8.2018.

2. Accordingly, the application will stand over till 31.8.2018.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 8699/2016

KAMAL SEHGAL ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Jagdish, Adv.

versus UOI AND ANRS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Adv. for Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 01.05.2018

CM. APPL.No.16932/2018

1. The substantive prayer made in the application is as follows:

“To allow the petitioner to withdraw Writ Petition (Civil) No.8699/2016 with liberty to approach the Hon’ble Tribunal.”

2. Accordingly, prayer as made is allowed.

3. The captioned application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.8699/2016

4. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as

prayed for.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4543/2018 & CM. APPL. No.17603/2018

VIJAY KUMAR SINHA & ANR ..... Petitioner

Through: None.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC

for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Adverse orders are deferred.

3. Renotify the matter on 7.5.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4594/2018

SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA & ANR

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Anju B. Gupta with Ms. Apoorva Gulati, Advs. Gulati, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj with Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 01.05.2018

CM Appl. No.17756/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4594/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17755/2018

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks short accommodation to file an affidavit vis-a-vis the person who was on the board of the defaulting company and is not party before this Court.

3. Renotify the matter on 4.5.2018.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4587/2018 & CM. APPL. No.17744/2018

MITHILESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Singh, Adv. Through: Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Adv. for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Bhardwaj accepts notice for the respondents.

3. In view of the order that I propose to pass, Mr. Bhardwaj does not wish to file counter affidavit in the matter.

4. The record shows that the defaulting company goes by the name: “JSB Total Broadcast Communication Private Limited” (for short “JSB”). The master data of JSB shows that at the relevant point in time, two persons were appointed on its Board of Directors, one of which was the petitioner. The other director, that is, Mr. Jesus Mantoo is not party before this Court. 4.1 I am told by learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Jesus Mantoo has shown no interest in approaching this Court for relief.

W.P.(C) 4587/2018

5. Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is impacted with the continued inclusion of by his name in the list of disqualified directors as he is on the board of other companies, which are active and fully functional. For this purpose, my attention is drawn to page 62 of the paper book.

6. Mr. Bhardwaj, who appears for the respondents, says that the assertions of the petitioner made before this Court can be inquired into by the ROC.

6.1 I tend to agree with this submission of Mr. Bhardwaj. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with direction that the petitioner would appear before the ROC on 8.5.2018 at 11.00 a.m. The ROC will ascertain the correct position and thereafter, pass speaking order. copy of the order will be furnished to the counsel for the petitioner.

8. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the ROC‟s order, he will have liberty to assail the same in the manner known to law.

9. Pending the inquiry by the ROC, the operation of the impugned list of disqualified directors will remain stayed insofar as it concerns the petitioner. 10. Furthermore, ROC will activate the petitioner‟s DIN and DSC. The ROC will, however, have liberty to vary or even withdraw the facility after hearing the petitioner and/or his representative, if such situation arises. 11. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

W.P.(C) 4587/2018 Pg.2 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4581/2018

JAGDISH VISHNOI AND ORS. ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Varun Kashyap, Adv.

versus

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ORS.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 01.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioner says that he will file an affidavit stating

therein clearly as to the period for which the defaulting company has not carried out any business and operated any bank account.

2. Renotify the matter on 4.5.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4575/2018

RANBIR KAUR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Bansal with Mr. Alok Sinha, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Adv. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17724/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4575/2018 & CM APP No.17723/2018

2. Issue notice.

3. At request of the Court, Mr. Shukla accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.

4. In view of the order that I propose to pass, Mr. Shukla does not wish to file counter affidavit.

5. The record shows that the defaulting company goes by the name: “Habitat Space & Infra Private Limited” (for short “HSIPL”). It is the writ petitioner‟s case that since HSIPL had not filed its financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law, its name was struck off from the Register of Companies.

W.P.(C) 4575/2018 Pg.1 of 3

5.1 The master data appended to the petition shows that at the given point in time, there were three Directors on the Board of HSIPL. These being: Ravi Malik, Renu Malik and the writ petitioner (Ranbir Kaur).

5.2 It appears that Ravi Malik had approached this Court by way of writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3105/2018. This writ petition was disposed of by another learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.3.2018. By virtue of this order liberty was granted to Mr. Ravi Malik to avail of the benefits of the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (“Scheme”) in consonance with the directions contained therein.

6. Mr. Bansal, who appears for the petitioner, says that, in fact, Mr. Ravi Malik has also filed an appeal before the NCLT, which he proposes to withdraw, in view of the order dated 28.3.2018, passed by this Court. Mr. Bansal further submits that the writ petitioner had also moved an application before the NCLT for being impleaded as party.

6.1 It is, thus, the submission of Mr. Bansal that given these circumstances, the writ petitioner‟s DIN and DSC be activated and her name may be excluded from the impugned list of disqualified directors, as was ordered in the case of Mr. Ravi Malik.

7. Mr. Shukla, who appears for the official respondents, on the other hand, says that the matter needs to be inquired into by the ROC.

7.1 I tend to agree with the submission of Mr. Shukla.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that the writ petitioner would appear before the ROC on 8.5.2018 at 11.00 a.m. The ROC will ascertain the correct position and thereafter, pass speaking order. copy of the order, so passed, will be furnished to the counsel for the writ W.P.(C) 4575/2018 Pg.2 of 3

petitioner.

9. In case the writ petitioner is aggrieved by ROC‟s order, she will have liberty to assail the same in the manner known to law.

10. Pending the inquiry by ROC, the operation of the impugned list of disqualified directors will remain stayed insofar as it concerns the writ petitioner.

11. Furthermore, the ROC will activate the Petitioner's DIN and DSC. The ROC will, however, have the liberty to vary or even withdraw the facility after hearing the writ petitioner and/or her representative, if such situation arises.

12. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

W.P.(C) 4575/2018 Pg.3 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4574/2018

SHAILESH GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17722/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4574/2018 & CM APP No.17721/2018

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation to file an affidavit bringing on record the consent of the other Directors on the Board of the defaulting companies.

3. At his request, renotify the matter on 8.5.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4572/2018

RAGHVENDRA AGARWAL AND ORS

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vivek Malik with Mr. Dhawal Sain, Advs. Sain, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R01.05.2018

CM APP No.17719/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4572/2018 & CM APP No.17718/2018

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation to file an affidavit bringing on record the fact that the defaulting company has not carried out any business and operated any bank account.

3. At request, renotify the matter on 3.5.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 10374/2017

SURINDER KUMAR MADAN ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Adv.

versus

DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Sumit Rana, Adv. for DSIIDC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17498/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Sumit Rana accepts notice for the respondent.

3. Reply, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.

4. Renotify the matter on 23.7.2018.

5. In case the Estate Officer passes the final order, he will not enforce

the same for period of one week from the date the order is passed. copy of the final order will be furnished to the petitioner. of the final order will be furnished to the petitioner.

6. Dasti.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 885/2017 & CM APP No.4000/2017, 12602/2017

BOHRA INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Biju Mattam, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. J. Vijetha, Adv. for UOI.

Mr. Manish Kaushik with Mishal

Johari, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation.

2. Renotify the matter on 16.11.2018.

3. In the meanwhile, respondents will file their counter affidavits within

four weeks from today.

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 8843/2014 & CM APP No.11396/2015

DMA NURSING HOME & MEDICAL

ESTABLISHMENT FORUM

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pusshp Gupta, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv. for Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC for R-1/UOI. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Adv. for R-3/GIPSA. Akshay Makhija, CGSC for R-1/UOI. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Adv. for R-3/GIPSA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. No time left.

2. It is already 5.45 p.m.

3. Renotify the matter on 19.11.2018.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner will take steps to implead the

insurance companies, which form the part of respondent No.3/GIPSA.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

$~20 & 21

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 5152/2010

DELHI JAL BOARD Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv.

..... Petitioner

versus

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for GNCTD.

Ms. Biji Rajesh with Mr. Diwankar Sethi, Advs. for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for MCD.

W.P.(C) 5926/2011 & CM APP No.11986/2011

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER

..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Biji Rajesh with Mr. Diwankar Sethi, Advs. for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for MCD.

versus

THE GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for GNCTD.

Mr. Ajjay Aroraa with Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for NDMC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. I am informed that detailed counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.5152/2010 & W.P.(C) No.5926/2011 as directed by this Court vide order

dated 24.11.2016 has not been filed by respondent No.1.

2. Respondent No.1 will do the needful within four weeks from today.

Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.

3. Renotify the matter on 26.11.2018.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/pmc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4548/2018

VIRENDER MISHRA AND ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Dev P.Bhardwaj, CGSC with

Mr. Kanishk Arora &

Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Advs.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17618/2018(exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4548/2018 & CM Appl.No.17617/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by the learned counsel for the official respondents that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Skydd Technologies Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company had not carried out any

business in the last three years. Furthermore, the petitioners states that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also

furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4546/2018

ANKUSH JOHAR AND ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Saurabh Kalia with Mr. Siddharth Nagpal, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Adv. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17612/2018(exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4546/2018 & CM Appl.No.17611/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Diwakar, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Addroit Media Marketing Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company had not carried out any business since its incorporation. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on

account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not

covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

$~55 & 70

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4540/2018

ROHINI SAWHNEY

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vineet Jhanji with Mr. Imran Moulaey, Mr. Pawan Sharma & Ms. Arpita Yadav, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.S.Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Adv. + W.P.(C) 4580/2018

RISHAL SAWHNEY

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vineet Jhanji with Mr. Imran Moulaey, Mr. Pawan Sharma & Ms. Arpita Yadav, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. B.S.Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018 CM APP No.17542/2018(exemption) in W.P.(C) 4540/2018 &CM APP No.17733/2018(exemption) in W.P.(C) 4580/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 4540/2018 & CM Appl.No.17541/2018 &W.P.(C) 4580/2018 & CM Appl.No.17732/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Shukla, CGSC that the issues raised

in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Boards of companies by the names: Konkan Retreat Private Limited and Hacienda Retreat Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Companies"). The petitioners state that the Companies had not carried out any business since their incorporation. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Companies' financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of

Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition(s) will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject companies mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4538/2018

VIKRAM KHULLAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Sr. Counsel for R- 1 & 2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17532/2018(exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4538/2018 & CM Appl.No.17531/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by Mr.Mishra, Sr. Counsel that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Golden Glades And Resorts Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company had not carried out any business since the last three years. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on

account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not

covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4534/2018, CM APP No.17524/2018

RAHUL MALHOTRA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

W.P.(C) No.4577/2018 & CM. Appl. No.17524/2018

1. Issue notice. Mr. Amrita Prakash, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, says that he wishes to approach the NCLT for reviving company by the name: Daily Bazaar Private Limited(hereinafter referred to as “Company”).

3. To be noted, the Company was struck off from the Register of Companies by the ROC upon its failure to file the requisite financial statements and returns. The petitioners, I am told, were appointed as Directors on the Board of the Company.

4. In view of the fact that the petitioners wish to approach the NCLT to revive the Company in consonance with the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, the learned counsel for the official respondents

submits that the ROC will not oppose the revival provided the appeal is filed before 07.05.2018.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the NCLT by way of an appeal. Since the captioned Writ petition was filed on the day the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 ("Scheme") was to expire, leave is granted to the Petitioner(s) to institute the appeal with NCLT on or before 07.05.2018. Pending the decision in the appeal, there would be stay on the operation of the list of disqualified directors insofar as it concerns the petitioners herein. Furthermore, the respondents will also activate the DIN and DSC of the petitioners.

6. Needless to say if the petitioners fail to file an appeal within the timeline given above, or fails in persuading the NCLT to revive the Company, the stay on the operation of the list of disqualified directors, insofar as it concerns the petitioners, would stand dissolved automatically with necessary consequences. This direction would also apply if the petitioners fail to take requisite steps under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (“Scheme”) after it is ordered to be revived by NCLT.7. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018 ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4545/2018

AVBS DIGITAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. N.S.Dalal & Ms. Toral Banerjee, Advs.

versus

POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH & ANR ..... Respondents

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is aggrieved as the contract given to it for annual maintenance of printers, scanners, computers, laptops and fax machines has been terminated prior to its tenure coming to an end. as the contract given to it for annual maintenance of printers, scanners, computers, laptops and fax machines has been terminated prior to its tenure coming to an end.

2. According to the petitioner, the tenure of the contract was three years i.e. from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2019. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contract was terminated vide communication dated 11[th] April, 2018, at the whim and fancy of respondent no.1 years i.e. from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2019. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contract was terminated vide communication dated 11[th] April, 2018, at the whim and fancy of respondent no.1 3. Issue notice.

4. Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of

W.P.(C) 4545/2018

the respondents. Learned counsel states that she would require time to obtain instructions.

5. Renotify the matter on 6.7.2018.

6. Counsel for the respondents will bring to the Court the original records. Furthermore, if contract is given to third party by the respondents the same will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

W.P.(C) 4545/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4567/2018

JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through: Dr. Ashwani Kumar & Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Mr. Vishal Gohri & Mr. Shubhanshu Kaushik, Advs. Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Mr. Vishal Gohri & Mr. Shubhanshu Kaushik, Advs.

versus

BANK OF INDIA

Through: None.

..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Issue notice to the respondent.

2. In addition, service be effected via private mode as well.

3. Renotify the matter on 26.10.2018.

MAY 01, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4573/2018, CM APP No.17720/2018

JENENDRA MEDICOS PVT. LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR VINOD KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. P.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Bharathi Raju with

Ms. J.Vijetha, Advs. for R-1 to 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Ms. Bharathi Raju, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of

respondent nos. 1 to 3.

3. Counter affidavit, if any be filed within three weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto be filed before the next date of hearing. Rejoinder thereto be filed before the next date of hearing.

4. Any steps taken hereafter by the respondents will be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. the final outcome of the writ petition.

5. Renotify on 15[th] November, 2018.

MAY 01, 2018 ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4588/2018

KHAITAN CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD

...... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Adv versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with

Mr. Brajesh Kumar &

Mr. Waize Ali, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R01.05.2018

1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Adverse orders are deferred.

2. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned counsel who appears for the respondents states that he will take instructions in the meanwhile.

3. Renotify on 6[th] July, 2018.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/ak

At this stage, Mr. Vineet Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner enters appearance. He is apprised of the order passed today.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4597/2018, CM No.17761/2018

SANJAY SACHDEVA & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr.Kunal Sabharwal, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kanishk Arora, Adv.

..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

2. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

3. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: MGRS Promoters Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company had not carried out any business in the last four years. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

4. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

5. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

6. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

7. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated

21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

8. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

9. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

11. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

12. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4598/2018, CM No.17762/2018

ASHUTOASH RASTOGI & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Ashish Middha, Adv.

versus

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kanishk Arora, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

2. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

3. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: CLS Marketing Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company had not carried out any business since incorporation. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the

aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

4. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

5. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

6. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not

covered by the Division Bench judgment.

7. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

8. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

9. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

11. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

12. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4599/2018, CM No.17763/2018

RITU RASTOGI & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Ashish Middha, Adv.

versus

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kanishk Arora, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

2. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

3. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of

company by the name: Optima Wellness Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company was not carrying out business since its incorporation. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the

aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

4. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

5. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

6. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not

covered by the Division Bench judgment.

7. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

8. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

9. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

11. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

12. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4600/2018, CM No.17764/2018

ARVIND SHARMA & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pandey, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kanishk Arora, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

2. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

3. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Kazen – Servicemart Services & Sales Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company had not carried out any business in the last three years. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

4. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

5. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

6. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

7. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated

21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

8. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

9. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

11. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

12. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4604/2018

AMIT SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with

Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Adv. for R-1 to 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018 CM APP No.17769/2018(exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4604/2018 & CM Appl.No.17768/2018

2. At request of learned counsel for the petitioner, renotify the

matter on 7.5.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4601/2018, CM APP No.17765/2018 MANOJ CHANDRA MISHRA ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pandey, Adv.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with

Mr. Kanishk Arora &

Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Advs. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 01.05.2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Dev P.Bhardwaj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Bhardwaj does not wish to file counter affidavit in the matter in view of the directions I intend to pass.

3. The defaulting company in this case is Lords & Knights Hospitality Services Private Ltd. (LKPL). According to the petitioner the name of LKPL was struck off from the Register of the Companies on account of failure to file financial statements and statutory returns.

3.1 Resultantly, the petitioner along with other two persons who were appointed as Directors on the Board of LKPL attracted disqualification.

3.2 The list of disqualified directors which is appended at page 16 of the paper book shows the name of the petitioner and the other two directors i.e. Mr. Gagnish Arora and Mr. Tapan Thakur.

W.P.(C) 4601/2018

4. Counsel for the petitioner states that Mr. Gagnish Arora has resigned from LKPL and that Mr. Tapan Thakur had expired. Unfortunately, neither the resignation nor the death certificate has been placed on record.

5. Given these circumstances, Mr. Bhardwaj states that matter could be remitted to the ROC for necessary enquiry. could be remitted to the ROC for necessary enquiry.

5.1 I tend to agree with submission made by Mr. Bhardwaj.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: directions:

i) The petitioner will appear before the ROC on 10[th] May, 2018 at 11.00 am. at 11.00 am.

ii)Upon the petitioner producing the resignation letter and the death certificate pertaining to persons referred to above, the ROC will consider the request of the petitioner for excluding his name from the impugned list of disqualified directors. death certificate pertaining to persons referred to above, the ROC will consider the request of the petitioner for excluding his name from the impugned list of disqualified directors.

iii)Furthermore, if request is made for activation of DIN and DSC, the same will also be considered by the ROC. The ROC will pass speaking order; copy of which will be furnished to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved, he will have liberty to assail the same in the manner known to law. DSC, the same will also be considered by the ROC. The ROC will pass speaking order; copy of which will be furnished to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved, he will have liberty to assail the same in the manner known to law.

7. The writ petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

8. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak W.P.(C) 4601/2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

Page 2 of 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4512/2018

KAPIL GARG

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Sima Gulati with Ms. Ridhima Gulati &

Ms. Revati Gulati, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Through:

..... Respondents

Mr. B.S.Shukla, CGSC for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No. 17340/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. B.S.Shukla, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. Mr. Shukla states that he does not wish to file reply in the matter in view of the directions I intend to pass.

3 The record shows that the petitioner had approached this Court in the first instance by way of writ petition bearing No.11709/2017. This petition was disposed of by order dated 2[nd] January, 2018. By virtue of the said order, the ROC was directed to carry out an enquiry as to whether the petitioner had acted as director since 28.11.2011 qua the subject company.

3.1 To be noted, it was the petitioner‟s stand that he had resigned from the subject company on 28.11.2011 and that he had transferred his shares in favour of one, Mr. P.K. Jain, the husband of Ms. Shriya Jain, the person who was appointed as Director on the Board of the subject company.

4. perusal of the impugned order shows that the ROC did not call W.P.(C) 4512/2018 Page 1 of 2

upon Ms. Shriya Jain to give her version of events while ascertaining as to whether or not the petitioner had acted as Director of the subject company after 28.11.2011.

4.1 The ROC, in my opinion, given the circumstances obtaining in the case ought to have called upon Ms. Shriya Jain to explain her stand in the matter.

5. Given these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the ROC for fresh enquiry.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is Director on the Board of other companies which are active and fully functional and the continued inclusion of the petitioner‟s name in the list of disqualified directors is impacting his functionality qua such companies. For this purpose my attention is drawn to Annexure B. Unfortunately, the master data of companies referred to in Annexure has not been placed before the Court.

6.1 Therefore, in case the petitioner files an affidavit with the ROC bringing to light this fact, the ROC will be authorized to activate the DIN and DSC of the petitioner after he has ascertained the correct facts qua this aspect of the matter.

6.2 The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

7. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

W.P.(C) 4512/2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

Page 2 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4503/2018

M/S RAMESH CHAND GUPTA AND SONS

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Pardeep Gupta with Mr. Parinav Gupta, Advs.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Standing counsel with Mr. Chirayu Jain, Adv. Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Standing counsel with Mr. Chirayu Jain, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM Appl.No.17308 & 17309/2018(exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Applications stand disposed of. 2. Applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4503/2018 & CM Appl.No.17310/2018

3. Mr. Pardeep Gupta who appears for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the captioned writ petition and the application with liberty to challenge the cancellation order which the respondents have passed in the meanwhile. It is to be noted this writ petition had been filed to quash the suspension order. to withdraw the captioned writ petition and the application with liberty to challenge the cancellation order which the respondents have passed in the meanwhile. It is to be noted this writ petition had been filed to quash the suspension order.

4. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed

for.

5. Dasti.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018/ak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3358/2018

SHAQIQ MOHD KHAN AND ANR

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Through:

..... Respondents

Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17291/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Ms. Amrita Prakash, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents. Mr. Prakash states that she does not oppose the prayer made in the application. The substantive prayer made in the application is as follows:

"A. Allow the instant application by granting 15 days' time to the Petitioners/Applicants in order to comply with the directions of this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 06.04.2018;"the Petitioners/Applicants in order to comply with the directions of this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 06.04.2018;"

3. For the reasons given in this application, time is granted to the applicant/petitioner no.1 to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 6.4.2018 till 15[th] May, 2018. applicant/petitioner no.1 to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 6.4.2018 till 15[th] May, 2018.

4. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

5. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2995/2018

MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR ..... Petitioners

Through:

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj with

Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advs. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17268/2018

1. There is no appearance on behalf of the applicants/petitioners. The application made seeks only extension of time for deposit of FDR with the Registrar General of this court.

2. Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents, says he has no objection to the prayer made in the application. The substantive prayer made in the application is as follows:-

"a) extend the time granted for deposit the said FDR with Registrar of High Court in the interest of justice;" Registrar of High Court in the interest of justice;"

3. Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed.

4. The applicants/petitioners are given time till 15[th] May, 2018 to deposit the FDR with the Registrar General of this Court. The application is disposed of accordingly.

5. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2901/2018

AKASH GOEL & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Sougat Sinha, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No. 17415/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the

official respondents.

3. This is an application which seeks extension of time to comply with

the order dated 23[rd] March, 2018. The substantive prayer made in the

application is as follows:

“a) Pass an order to allow time to the petitioner to do the compliance of order dated 23.03.2018 by 7[th] May, 2018 or any other period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit” compliance of order dated 23.03.2018 by 7[th] May, 2018 or any other period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit”

4. For the reasons given therein the prayer made is allowed. The application is disposed of accordingly. application is disposed of accordingly.

5. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2484/2018 LUBNA SADAF & ANR ..... Petitioners LUBNA SADAF & ANR ..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Siddhanth Shankar, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. B.S.Shukla, CGSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No. 17298/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. B.S.Shukla, learned CGSC accepts notice at the request of the

Court, on behalf of the official respondents.

3. This is an application which, in effects, seeks condonation of delay

in complying with the order dated 22[nd] March, 2018. The substantive

prayer made in the application is as follows:

“a)Condone the delay of 19 days in depositing the FDR of an amount of Rs.30,000/-, with the Registry of this Hon’ble Court, on behalf of the petitioners, in terms of order dated 22[nd] March, 2018; and" an amount of Rs.30,000/-, with the Registry of this Hon’ble Court, on behalf of the petitioners, in terms of order dated 22[nd] March, 2018; and"

4. For the reasons given therein the prayer made is allowed. The application is disposed of accordingly. application is disposed of accordingly.

5. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1485/2018

RAHUL GOEL & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Amit Bhagat, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Through:

..... Respondents

Mr. Vijay Joshi, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Anil Dabas, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R01.05.2018 01.05.2018

CM APP No. 17408/2018

1. This is an application which, in effect, seeks modification of the

order dated 16.2.2018, passed by Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru.

2. Place the matter before the same Bench, subject to the orders of the Hon‟ble Acting Chief Justice on 3[rd] May, 2018. of the Hon‟ble Acting Chief Justice on 3[rd] May, 2018.

3. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 9799/2017

ASHIM SARAF & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Reena Choudhary, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with

Ms. Madhuri Dhingra, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No. 17352/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, learned CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. Mr. Digpaul states that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. The substantive prayer made in the application is as follows:

“a) Pass an order/direction permitting the Petitioners to make the deposits with the Registry of this Hon'ble Court in the form of FDRs in compliance with its order dated 22.03.2018, within period of one day from the date of receipt of this Hon'ble Court's order in the present Application.”the deposits with the Registry of this Hon'ble Court in the form of FDRs in compliance with its order dated 22.03.2018, within period of one day from the date of receipt of this Hon'ble Court's order in the present Application.”

3. For the reasons given therein the prayer made is allowed. The application is disposed of accordingly.

4. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018 ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 5653/2015, CM APP No. 10179/2015

M/S SURYA PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Shikha Sapra, with Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advs. Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, Adv. Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that she has not received any instructions from the petitioner despite having sent several communications in that behalf. Consequently, the petitioner seeks discharge. Let an application be moved in that behalf. The application will be accompanied by communication(s) sent to the petitioner in that regard. any instructions from the petitioner despite having sent several communications in that behalf. Consequently, the petitioner seeks discharge. Let an application be moved in that behalf. The application will be accompanied by communication(s) sent to the petitioner in that regard.

2. In the meanwhile, issue Court notice to the petitioner.

3. Renotify the matter on 16[th] November, 2018.

MAY 01, 2018 ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4532/2018 ARUN KAPOOR ..... Petitioner ARUN KAPOOR ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Kumar Dev Sharma with Mr. Mani Dev Sharma, Advs. Mr. Mani Dev Sharma, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Dev P.Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kanishk Arora &

Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Advs. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R01.05.2018 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17521/2018

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the defaulting company i.e. Tarz Support Services Private Ltd. had on its Board two Directors i.e. the writ petitioner herein (Mr. Arun Kapoor) and another person by the name of Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma took steps to avail of the benefit of the CODS-2018 his name was removed from the impugned list of disqualified directors. It is stated that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, his name has not been excluded from the said list.

3. Mr. Kanishk who appears for the official respondents states that he will obtain instructions in the matter.

4. List on 4[th] May, 2018.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4527/2018

MAYA CAROLI

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vivek Malik with Mr. Dhawal Jain, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: CGSC for R-1 & 2.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gogna,

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17512/2018(exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4527/2018 & CM APP No.17511/2018

3. Issue notice.

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gogna, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. In view of the order, I propose to pass the order Mr. Gogna states that he does not wish to file counter affidavit in the matter.

5. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as the director on the Board of Dynagro (India) Private Ltd. and Gummi Metall Technik (India) Private Ltd. [in short “GMT India”].

W.P.(C) 4527/2018

6 It is the assertion of the petitioner that while her name has been put in the list of disqualified directors for financial year 2012-2014 by the ROC in exercise of powers under Section 164(2)(a), Companies Act, 2013, the subject company i.e. GMT (India) continues to be shown as an active and fully functional entity.

5.1 For this purpose my attention has been drawn to page 37 of the paper book.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that insofar as GMT (India) is concerned, there is dispute with regard to management of the same which is pending adjudication, at present, now before this Court in the form of an appeal, numbered as : Co.A(SB)38/2012.

6.1 As matter of fact, my attention has also been drawn in this behalf to the assertions made in para 7 at page 11 of the writ petition. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the assertions made in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

i)The petitioner will appear on her own or via her authorized representative before the ROC on 10[th] May, 2018 at 11.00 am. representative before the ROC on 10[th] May, 2018 at 11.00 am. ii)The ROC, after having the petitioner and/or her authorized representative will pass the speaking order. representative will pass the speaking order.

iii)The ROC, will ascertain as to whether the claim made by the petitioner that there obtains management dispute is correct or not. petitioner that there obtains management dispute is correct or not.

iv)The ROC, will also rule as to whether in these circumstances and, especially, given the fact that GMT (India) is shown as an W.P.(C) 4527/2018 Page 2 of 3 and, especially, given the fact that GMT (India) is shown as an W.P.(C) 4527/2018 Page 2 of 3

active and fully functional company, the petitioner‟s name ought to be included in the list of disqualified directors.

v)Pending conclusion of the aforesaid enquiry insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the operation of list of disqualified directors will remain -stayed. Furthermore, the petitioner‟s DIN and DSC will be reactivated by the ROC. It is further made clear that the ROC will have the authority to vary or withdraw the facility if the situation so demands.

8. Accordingly the all pending applications shall stand closed.

9. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

W.P.(C) 4527/2018

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4525/2018, CM APP Nos.17499-500/2018

PRAVEEN GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.K.B.Soni, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Gaugang Kanth, CGSC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy vis-a-vis defaulting company i.e. Ganapati Shelters Private Ltd.

2. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

MAY 01, 2018 ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4412/2018, CM APP Nos.17130-17132/2018

ANIL KUMAR BAJAJ ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Siddharth Mehta, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with

Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 01.05.2018

CM APP No.17131/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Vivek Goyal, learned CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the

official respondents. The substantive prayer made in the application

is as follows:

“(a) Allow the Petitioners herein to file their returns under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 till 10[th]May 2018.”

3. For the reasons given in the application, the prayer made therein is allowed. The applicant/petitioner will comply with the directions contained in the order by 15[th] May, 2018. The application is disposed of accordingly.

4. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4036/2018

OUR LADY OF HEALTH VAILANKANNI SOUTH INDIAN

BHAJANA SABHA ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Harpreet Kaur & Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava, Advs. Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gigi C. George with Mr. Amit Dogra, Advs. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM APP No. 17497/2018

1. This is an application seeking leave to withdraw the writ

petition with liberty to file fresh writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an eviction orderhas been passed which needs to be challenged. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

W.P.(C) 4036/2018

3. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed

for.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3602/2018 NARENDRA KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anshuman Sahni, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr. Sidhant Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018 CM APP No. 17641/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, learned CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. The counsel states that she does not wish to file reply to the application. The substantive prayer made in the application is as follows:

“a)Allow the application in favour of the petitioner and extend the time to comply with Order dated 13.4.2018 and direct the Registrar General to accept the Demand Draft No.309485 dated 25.04.2018 on behalf of Lancers Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in pursuance of Order dated 13.04.2018.”

3. For the reasons given in the application, the prayer made therein is allowed. The applicant/petitioner will comply with the directions contained in order dated 13[th] April, 2018 on or before 15[th] May, 2018. The application is disposed of accordingly.

4. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3022/2018

KUMAR SAMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Counsel for the petitioner.

(Appearance not given)

versus

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 01.05.2018

CM APP No. 17222/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, learned CGSC, accepts notice at the

request of the Court, on behalf of the official respondents. The substantive

prayers made in the application are as follows:

“(a) Condone the delay of 20 days in Complying with order dated 23.03.2018 of Hon'ble Court

(b) Grant one-week time to the Applicants/Petitioners to submit FDR and to avail the benefit of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.”

3. For the reasons given in the application, the prayers (a) and (b) are allowed. The applicants/petitioners are given time till 8[th] May, 2018 to comply with the directions issued by this Court for deposit of FDR and to avail of the benefit of CODS-2018 The application is disposed of accordingly.

4. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2997/2018 DHANENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND ANR ..... Petitioners

..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Aditya Nayyar with Mr. Sahil Gupta & Mr. Hetish Raj Singh, Advs. Mr. Hetish Raj Singh, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj with

Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advs. for R- 1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018 CM APP No. 17503/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. Mr. Bhardwaj states that he does not wish to file reply. The substantive prayer made in the application is as follows:

“a) extend the time granted for deposit the said FDR with Registrar of High Court in the interest of justice.”

3. For the reasons given in the application, the prayer made therein is allowed. The applicants/petitioners are given time till 15[th]May, 2018 to place on record the FDR in terms of the directions issued by this Court. The application is disposed of accordingly. 4. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2996/2018 PRADEEP DALMIA AND ANR ..... Petitioners

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Aditya Nayyar with Mr. Sahil Gupta &

Mr. Hetish Raj Singh, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj with

Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advs. for R- 1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018 CM APP No. 17496/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. Mr. Bhardwaj states that he does not wish to file reply. The substantive prayer made in the application is as follows:

a) extend the time granted for deposit the said FDR with Registrar of High Court in the interest of justice; Registrar of High Court in the interest of justice;

3. For the reasons given in the application, the prayer made therein is allowed. The applicants/petitioners are given time till 15[th]May, 2018 to place on record the FDR in terms of the directions issued by this Court. The application is disposed of accordingly. 4. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2959/2018 HARPREET SINGH CHHABBA ..... Petitioner HARPREET SINGH CHHABBA ..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Gursat Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul with

Ms. Madhuri Dhingra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018 CM APP No. 17667/2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. Mr. Digpaul states that he does not wish to file reply. The substantive prayer made in the application is as follows:

“a) Delay of 20 days in depositing the amount as per the order dated 23.03.2018 in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt is condoned and the Fixed Deposit Receipt along with calculation sheet is taken on record.”

3. For the reasons given in the application, the prayer made therein is allowed. The application is disposed of accordingly.

4. The original FDRs along with the calculation sheet will be taken on record by the Registry.

5. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1478/2018

KAMINI DHUPAR AND ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Awnish Kumar, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 01.05.2018 CM APP No. No.17665/2018

1. Mr.Awnish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks short accommodation to file an additional affidavit with regard to whether or not the third director on the Board of the subject company has accorded consent to avail of benefit of CODS-2018.

2. At request, renotify the matter on 8[th] May, 2018.

MAY 01, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4617/2018

MAHENDRA SURANA & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi with Ms. Preeti Kumra and Mr. Raj Rishi, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC and Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

2. In this matter, I am informed by the learned counsel for the official respondents that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

3. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Aptive IT Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

4. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by

this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

5. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

6. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

7. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C)

9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

8. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

9. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

11. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

12. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4610/2018

MUKESH GARG AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Manmohan Shringirishi, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

2. Issue notice. Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, says that he wishes to approach the NCLT for reviving company by the name: SRG Propmart Private Limited(hereinafter referred to as “Company”).

4. To be noted, the Company was struck off from the Register of Companies by the ROC upon its failure to file the requisite financial statements and returns. The petitioners, I am told, were appointed as Directors on the Board of the Company.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioners have approached the NCLT to revive the Company in consonance with the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, the learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the ROC will not oppose the revival.

6. To be noted, the captioned Writ petition was filed on the day the

Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 ("Scheme") was to expire. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that pending the decision in the appeal, there would be stay on the operation of the list of disqualified directors insofar as it concerns the petitioners herein. Furthermore, the respondents will also activate the DIN and DSC of the petitioners.

7. Needless to say if the petitioners fail in persuading the NCLT to revive the Company, the stay on the operation of the list of disqualified directors, insofar as it concerns the petitioners, would stand dissolved automatically with necessary consequences.

8. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4611/2018

CHURCHIT SADH AND ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Siddharth Sharma and Ms. Charu Tyagi, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

2. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

3. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Churchit International Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company was not carrying out business, and that they were planning to liquidate the Company. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners

aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

4. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

5. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

6. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not

covered by the Division Bench judgment.

7. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

8. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

9. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

11. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

12. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4612/2018

MR. KUNAL JAIDKA AND ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Hetish Raj Singh, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC and Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

C.M. NO.17820/2018(Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) No. 4612/2018

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

3. In this matter, I am informed by the learned counsel for the official respondents that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

4. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Land Kraft Consulting Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under

the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official

respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 01, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4605/2018

SANDEEP KANSAL ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Advocate for R-1,2 & 3.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

2. In this matter, I am informed by Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

3. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Alpine Advanced Education Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The petitioners state that the Company had not carried out any business since incorporation. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

4. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

5. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated.

(iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (hereafter “Scheme”). Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

6. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner(s) and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

7. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated

21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union India and Ors.

8. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

9. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

11. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

12. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 5292/2014

SNEH LATA JAIN & ORS.

... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Rajeshwar Kr. Gupta, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC for UOI.

Mr. Sanjay Dewan and Ms. Palak,

Advocates for R-2.

Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. C.K.

Bhatt, Advocates for GNCTD.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks accommodation. The

request is not opposed by Ms. Arora, who appears for respondents.

2. Renotify the matter on 8.10.2018.

MAY 01, 2018

Cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4607/2018

SURAN SINGH AND ORS

..... Petitioners

Through: Ms. Anupradha Singh, Advocate. versus

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC/GNCTD and Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocate for R-1, 3 & 4. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocates for R-2/DUSIB. Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate for UOI. and Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocate for R-1, 3 & 4. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocates for R-2/DUSIB. Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Ms. Anupradha Singh, who appears for petitioners, claims that the petitioners, who are living in hutments in the subject area have been residing there, for nearly 40 years. It is stated that the impugned order of eviction has been passed contrary to the judgments of this Court rendered in Sudama Singh v. Govt. of Delhi, (2010 SCC OnLine Del) and PK Paul v. Estates Officer & Anr.,(2010 SCC OnLine Del 4207).

2. This apart, counsel for the petitioners says that very short time have been given to evacuate from the subject area.

3. Mr. Chauhan, who appears for respondent no.2/DUSIB, says

that the said respondent has no intimation with regard to the impugned action being taken by respondent no.1/PWD.

4. Issue notice.

4.1 Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, accepts notice for respondent no.1/PWD.

4.2 Likewise, Mr. Shukla, accepts notice for respondent no.3 & 4.

5. Counter affidavit(s) be filed within two weeks from today.

6. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of

hearing.

7. Respondents will maintain status-quo as to the possession vis-

a-vis the petitioners till further orders are passed in the matter.

8. Renotify the matter on 17.8.2018.

9. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 01, 2018

cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4613/2018

MR. VINOD GOYAL

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Hetish Raj Singh, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Gigi C. George, Sr. Panel Counsel for R-1 & 2. Counsel for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation to file an affidavit of other directors on the Board of the defaulting company. affidavit of other directors on the Board of the defaulting company.

2. At request, renotify the matter on 8.05.2018.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4614/2018

PENGYU DONG & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi and Ms. Preeti Kumra, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC and Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation to file an

affidavit.

2. At request renotify the matter on 8.5.2018.

MAY 01, 2018

cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3883/2017

UNITY-TRIVENI-BCPL (JV)

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hitendra Nath Rathi, Advocate. Mr. Hitendra Nath Rathi, Advocate.

Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advocate with

versus

RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD.

Through:

..... Respondent

Mr. Udit Seth, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

01.05.2018

1. At request, renotify the matter on 16.8.2018.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7454/2012

JOERG BOETHLING

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Mr. Rajesh, Mr. Rajeev and Ms. Meenakshi Rawat, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Varsha Poddar, Advocate for R-

Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. No time left.

2. It is already 4.55 PM.

3. To be noted Mr. Kirtiman Singh says that he will file an

additional affidavit.

4. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of

hearing.

5. Renotify the matter on 15.11.2018.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3451/2014

DI SPUN PIPE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Aakash Bajaj and Mr. Bharat Gupta, Advocates. Gupta, Advocates.

versus

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARD AND ORS ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Samraat Singh, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-2 & 3. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioners says that rejoinder was filed, today,

with the registry vide Diary No.13398.

2. copy of the same has been furnished to the counsel for the

respondents.

3. At request, renotify the matter on 20.11.2018.

MAY 01, 2018

cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2588/2015 VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. A.N. Singh, Mr. A.K. Mishra, Mr. B.N. Mishra and Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocates. Mr. B.N. Mishra and Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Through:

..... Respondents

Mrs. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Mr. Tushar Mathur and Ms. Sanjna Mr. Tushar Mathur and Ms. Sanjna

Dua, Advocates for R-1 & 2. Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Advocate for R-3. Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioner says that since the petitioner has received the money, he has instructions not to press the writ petition.

2. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed, in view of the above submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6523/2015

JHUGGI JHOMPRI EKTA MANCH (REGD.) & ANR..... Petitioners Through: Counsel (appearance not given)

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Counsel (appearance not given)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. I am told that except for respondent no.7, the remaining respondents have not filed their counter affidavits. perusal of the order dated 5.5.2017 would show that 4 weeks were granted to file the counter affidavits, failing which sum of Rs.10,000/- each was to be paid as costs to the petitioner.

2. Sadly, the counter affidavits have still not been filed. Since, the remaining respondents seek further time to file counter affidavits, they will pay additional costs of Rs.5000/- each. Let the needful be done within four weeks from today. If counter affidavits are not filed, the opportunity to file counter affidavit(s) shall stand closed.

3. In any case, counter affidavits will not be taken on record unless proof of payment of costs is placed on record.

4. The respondents will ensure that the costs are distributed pro rata amongst persons, whose names are given in the list of members

in Annexure P-1 at page 38 of the paper book.

5. Renotify the matter on 26.11.2018.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6738/2015 RAJNI SINGH ..... Petitioner RAJNI SINGH ..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Rajni Singh (petitioner in person)

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents

Through: Mrs. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with

Mr. Tushar Mathur, Advocate for R1.

Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal and Ms. Rupali Samuel, Advocates for R-3 & 4. Rupali Samuel, Advocates for R-3 & 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. No time left.

2. It is already 5.00 PM.

3. Renotify the matter on 11.10.2018.

MAY 01, 2018

cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7690/2015

DAL CHAND MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY

(R) & ANR ..... Petitioners

Through

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC/GNCTD and Ms. Mahamaya Chatergee, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Adverse orders are deferred.

3. Renotify the matter on 27.11.2018.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner will have liberty to file

rejoinder in the matter.

MAY 01, 2018

cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 9562/2016

DHRUV FILMS

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sumit Chander and Mr. Jatin Choudhary, Advocates. Choudhary, Advocates. versus

DD URDU DOORDARSHAN AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Ms. Radhalakshmi, Advocates for R-1 & Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Ms. Radhalakshmi, Advocates for R-1 &

Ms. Arti Bansal and Mr. Ashutosh Nandan Atrey, Advocates. Nandan Atrey, Advocates.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, who appears for respondent nos. 1 and 2, seeks further time to file counter affidavit.

2. The request is acceded to subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-. The counter affidavit will be filed within 2 weeks from today.

3. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

4. Renotify the matter on 28.11.2018.

MAY 01, 2018/cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 10819/2016

UNION OF INDIA

..... Petitioner

Through: Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, Advocate.

versus

MANISH KUMAR

Through: None.

..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

2. Adverse orders are deferred.

3. Renotify the matter on 29.11.2018.

MAY 01, 2018

cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 644/2017

JAGVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. Counsel for Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

versus

DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL & ORS ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Praveen Khattar, Advocate for R-1/DMC. 1/DMC.

Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate for GNCTD. GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Mr. Khattar, who appears for respondent no.1/DMC, seeks and is granted further 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit.

2. The request is acceded to subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner.

3. Ms. Kaur, who, now appears for respondents no.2 to 5, seeks further two weeks to file counter affidavit as there was delay caused due to change in counsel.

4. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within 4 weeks from today.

5. Renotify the matter on 30.11.2018.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1362/2017

ASSOCIATION FOR REHABILITATION UNDER NATIONAL TRUST INITIATIVE OF MARKETING ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate for R-1.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Aeweena Sharma and Ms. Shruti Pandey, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Request for accommodation is made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner. the petitioner.

2. The request is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents.

3. Renotify the matter on 29.11.2018.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2328/2017

MANMEET SINGH GULATI

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Varun Mishra, Advocate.

versus

FOREIGN INVESTMENT PROMOTION BOARD

(FIPB)

..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma and Mr. C.K. Bhatt, Advocates for FIPB.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R

% 01.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioner says that he will take steps to implead

the Union of India as party to the proceedings.

2. To be noted, Union of India can be sued, in these proceedings, only through the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in view of the fact that FIPB has been dissolved. only through the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in view of the fact that FIPB has been dissolved.

3. Let the needful be done within 4 weeks from today.

4. Renotify the matter on 4.9.2018.

MAY 01, 2018

cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 9109/2017

SNEHA SAWAI

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Abir Phukan, Ms. Anitha Mathai Muthirenthy and Ms. Sonali Jain, Advocates.

versus

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. K.S. Parihar and Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 01.05.2018

CM. APPL.39578/2017

1. This is an application filed to seek review of the order dated 16.10.2017, passed by Hon‟ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur. Hon‟ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur has, since then, retired. It is the assertion of the petitioner that there are errors in the order dated 16.10.2017. It is contended in this behalf that certain factual assertions have not been correctly recorded.

2. According to the petitioner, it was her case before the Court that her husband, one, Mr. Anshul Jain had forged her signatures on the loan documents issued by respondent no.2 and based on the forged documents, moneys were remitted by respondent no.2 to the

petitioner‟s salary account.

3. The petitioner claims that these moneys were withdrawn by Mr. Anshul Jain and transferred to his own account.

3.1 In sum, the petitioner was aggrieved not only by the act of forgery but also by the fact that she could not be called upon to bear the burden of the liability owed to respondent no.2.

4. The petitioner claims that criminal complaint was lodged, once, this aspect was discovered.

5. It is also the petitioner‟s case that contrary to what has been recorded in the order dated 16.10.2017, she never held an account with respondent no.2.

6. Mr. Parihar appears on behalf of respondent no.1/RBI.

7. There is, however, no representation on behalf of respondent

8. Given the aforementioned circumstances, the application is disposed of with the direction that the order dated 16.10.2017 will not come in the way of the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner or any other proceedings that she may take out against her husband i.e., Mr. Anshul Jain or, any other party.

9. This direction is not opposed by Mr. Parihar. Learned counsel informs me that pursuant to the order dated 16.10.2017, the petitioner‟s representation has been disposed of.

9.1 This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. Needless to say, the concerned court would frame its own view with regard to the assertions made by the petitioner before it.

MAY 01, 2018/cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3265/2018

BHARAT BHUSHAN KATARIA ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Aditi Kharpate, Advocate.

versus

ANITA VASHISHT AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr. Aditya Madaan, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 01.05.2018

1. Counsels for the respondents seek and is granted four (4) weeks to file the counter affidavit.

2. The petitioner‟s counsel will ensure that the entire set of the paper book is furnished to the counsel for respondent no.1.

3. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

4. Interim order dated 5.4.2018 will continue to operate, in the meanwhile.

5. Renotify the matter on 27.11.2018.

MAY 01, 2018 cks

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6874/2015 & C.M. Appl. No.12578/2015, 12579/2015 & 12330/2017 SIR SYYD EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY 12330/2017 SIR SYYD EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY

..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sabir Hussain, Adv.

versus

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NCT OF DELHI & ORS

..... Respondents Through Mr. Ankur Jain, Adv for DUSIB. Mr. G.D. Mishra, Standing Counsel for R-2/EDM.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018 1 The petitioner claims to be an educational and social welfare society. It is the petitioner‟s case that it is running school and for that purpose, an application has been made to the Director of Education on 07.02.1999 for allotment of land. The petitioner avers that while other similarly circumstanced entities have been allotted land, the same treatment has not been meted out to it. In support of its submission, reliance is placed on the document marked Annexure P-31, at page 120 of the paper book.

2 Mr. Ankur Jain, who, appears on behalf of DUSIB says that DUSIB came into existence only in 2004 and before that date, allotment of land for the said purpose, if at all, was made by DDA. It is also the contention of the counsel for DUSIB that at present,

DUSIB has no policy in place for allotment of land.

3 Having regard to the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, DUSIB is directed to file an affidavit placing its stand on record. In the affidavit, DUSIB will, inter alia, deal with the stand of the petitioner that since the application was made in 1999, why should land not be allotted to it as was done in the case of those entities whose names have been given in Annexure P-31.

4 The affidavit will be filed within six weeks from today.

5 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. hearing.

6 Renotify the matter on 12.11.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 11723/2015 RAM AVTAR & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through Mr. Samrat Jasra, Adv.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

..... Respondents Through Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC for GNCTD with Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Adv. Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advs for R-3 & R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018 1 Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC says that he will furnish another

copy of the counter affidavit.

2 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of

hearing.

3 In the meanwhile, respondents No. 3 & 4 will also file their counter affidavit within four weeks.

4 Renotify the matter on 25.09.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 7412/2016 PARAMJIT WALIA

..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Adv.

versus

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv for R-1 & R-4. R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018 C.M. Appl No.17861/2018C.M. Appl No.17861/2018

1 This is an application filed by the petitioner to bring certain

additional facts on record.

2 Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file reply.

3 Accordingly issue notice.

4 Let reply be filed within four weeks.

5 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of

hearing.

6 Renotify the matter on 04.09.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 534/2017 & C.M. Appl. No.2437/2017 M/S. CAPTAIN GUMAN SINGH & SONS & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through Ms. Kriti Malik and Mr. Faizi Saif, Advs.

versus

M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Divjyot Singh and Ms.Avsi Sharma, Advs

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R

% 02.05.2018

1 Request for accommodation is made on behalf of counsel for

the petitioner on the ground that he is in some personal difficulty.

2 Request is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. respondent.

3 Accordingly, renotify the matter on 29.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2005/2017

BADAR SAMDHANI AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Molvi Aijaz Hussain, Adv. Through Mr. Molvi Aijaz Hussain, Adv.

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC with Ms. Shukriti, Adv for R-1, R-5 & R-7. Shukriti, Adv for R-1, R-5 & R-7.

Ms. Deepika V.Marwaha and Ms. Raunika Johar, Advs for R-2. Mr. Abhinav with Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Advs for R-6. Raunika Johar, Advs for R-2. Mr. Abhinav with Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Advs for R-6.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 02.05.2018

C.M. Appl.................../2018 (to be numbered)

1 This is an application filed by respondent No.2 for condonation of delay in filing the counter affidavit. This application is not numbered. The Registry is directed to number the application.

2 For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. The Registry will, now, formally take on record the counter affidavit of respondent No.2.

2.1 copy of the counter affidavit will be furnished to the petitioner.

3 In the meanwhile, the petitioner will be at liberty to file rejoinder in the matter.

4 Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2005/2017

5 Renotify the matter on 30.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 5430/2017 & C.M. Appl. No.22861/2017 DR HEMANT TEWARI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Abhijat, Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Ms. Dakshaa Arora, Mr. Shaashwat Jindal, Mr.Kapil Kher and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advs. versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv with Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tarun Verma and Mr. Abhijit Chakrauvarty, Advocataes for MCI. Mr.Abhishek Swaroop, Adv for R-2 & R-3. Mr. Praveen Khattar with Mr. Bapi Das, Advs with Mr. Uppal, Assistant Secretary for DMS.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R

% 02.05.2018 1 Mr. Swaroop who appears for respondents No. 2 & 3 seeks and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. 2 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of

hearing. 3 Mr. Abhijat says that the additional affidavit has been placed on record. 4 Renotify the matter on 05.07.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6145/2017 & C.M. Appl. No.25564/2017 NEVIN KISHORE

..... Petitioner

Through Mr.Kapil Kher, Adv.

versus

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents Through Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv with Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tarun Verma and Mr. Abhijit Chakrauvarty, Advocataes for MCI.

Mr. Praveen Khattar with Mr. Bapi Das, Advs with Mr. Uppal, Assistant Secretary for DMS. Mr.Abhishek Swaroop, Adv for R-3.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018 1 Mr.Swaroop who appears for respondent No. 3 seeks and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit.

2 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of

hearing.

3 Renotify the matter on 05.07.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2506/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.10404/2018 RAJ SINGH & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through

Mr.Tushant, Advocate.

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through Ms. Shreya Mehta, Adv.

Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC with

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

02.05.2018

1 The substantive prayers made in the writ petition are as follow:-

“a. Admit the writ petition;

b. Pass writ / order / direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent not to take any action qua the property of the petitioners bearing no.F-335, khasra no.326 village Lado Sarai, New Delhi by demolishing the same, without affording opportunity of being heard;

2 On the previous date i.e. 16.03.2018 notice was issued in the petition and while issuing notice following order was passed:-

“ The petitioners' only apprehension is that coercive measures

may be taken against the subject property without hearing them. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that if such step is taken

then it will be contrary to the order of the Division Bench dated 24.2.2015, passed in LPA No.694/2014.

3. It appears that the petitioners have filed objections with the SDM/RA, Saket, New Delhi. copy of the objections is appended as Annexure P-8 at page 76 of the paper book.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners says, albeit, based on the revenue record that petitioners are the owners of the property which is located in Khasra No.326, Village Lado Sarai, District Delhi. For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to Annexure P-2 at pages 31 to 34 of the paper book. The petitioners claim that their predecessor in interest is, one, Mr. Risal Singh, son of Mohar Chand.

5. While entries in the revenue record do not establish title, the petitioners may have something to say qua the aspect concerning their right to be heard before any coercive measures are taken qua the subject property.

6. Issue notice. Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

7. Mr. Anupam will revert with instructions.

8. Renotify the matter on 2.5.2018.

9. In case the instructions are received to resist the petition, the counter affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing.

10. Till the next date of hearing, no coercive measure will be taken against the petitioners.

11. Dasti.”

3 Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC who appears on behalf of the respondent has stated that decision has been taken to grant personal

hearing to the petitioners on 09.05.2018 at 11:00 AM. Copy of the affidavit has been placed before me.

4 Petitioners‟ counsel has also been furnished copy of the said

notice which is dated 01.05.2018.

5 In these circumstances, in my view, nothing survives in the petition as the limited prayer of the petitioners is that they be heard in the matter.

6 In view of the decision taken by the SDM, Saket, no further

orders are called for in the petition.

7 The writ petition is accordingly closed.

8 All pending applications shall also stand closed.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6705/2014 & C.M. Appl. Nos.11992/2015, 11993/2015,21820/2015, 2280/2016, 7934/2016, 21667/2017 & 40333/2017 11993/2015,21820/2015, 2280/2016, 7934/2016, 21667/2017 & 40333/2017

K.R. CHITRA

..... Petitioner Through Petitioner in person with Ms. Chitra Srivastava, Advocate. Srivastava, Advocate.

versus

ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND TRUSTEE COMMITTEE & ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Adv for BCI. Mr. Devesh Dubey for Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan, ASC for GNCTD.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 02.05.2018 1 Ms. Srivastava has placed before me Notification dated 26.12.2017, issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi. This Notification sets out the names of the persons who are the trustees of the Advocates‟ Welfare Fund. The names and designation as given in the affidavit are as follow:-

Sl No Name Designation i Mr. Maninder Singh, Ld. Additional Solicitor Chairperson, Ex-General of India. officio ii. The Secretary to the Government of India, Member, Ex-officio Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India

2 Accordingly, the Chairperson and other members of the Committee are requested to appear in Court on the next date of hearing for the purpose of taking the matter forward, in particular, qua the aspect concerning framing of guidelines for disbursal of money to advocates who are in need of financial assistance.

3 The Registry will issue notice to the aforementioned persons, without Process Fee.

4 Ms. Srivastava, who is appointed as an amicus curiae in the matter, and also appears for Union of India, is requested to write to the Chairperson and members of the aforementioned Committee with regard to the developments that occurred, in Court, today.

5 Renotify the matter on 12.07.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 11895/2015 & C.M. Appl. No.4664/2017 K.R. CHITRA K.R. CHITRA

..... Petitioner

Through Petitioner in person with Ms. Chitra Srivastava, Advocate. Srivastava, Advocate.

versus

BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR

..... Respondents Through Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Adv for R-1. Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, ASC with Mr. Shashank Tiwari and Mr. Perth Vishisht, Advocates. Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, ASC with Mr. Shashank Tiwari and Mr. Perth Vishisht, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018 1 Renotify the matter with W.P. (C) No. 6705/2014 on 12.07.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 8211/2010 & C.M. Appl. Nos.21149/2010, 22164/2010 & 484/2011 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS 484/2011 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through Mr. Aashish Gupta and Mr.Anish Gupta, Advs. Gupta, Advs.

versus

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

..... Respondent Through Mr. Bendu Das, Adv for R-1. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for R-2. Mr. Gaurav Mitra with Mr. S. Sharma and Mr. R.S. Prabhu, Advs for Reliance Industries. Mr Prashant Bezboruah, Adv for R-4. Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms. Seerat Deep Singh, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018 1 Counsel for the petitioners seeks accommodation as the main

counsel is not available.

2 The request is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.

3 Renotify the matter on 09.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 7303/2013 & C.M. Appl. No. 15713/2013 M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS

..... Petitioners Through Mr. Aashish Gupta and Mr.Anish Gupta, Advs. Gupta, Advs.

versus

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Bendu Das, Adv for R-1. Mr Prashant Bezboruah, Adv for R-2. Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms. Seerat Deep Singh, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018 1 Renotify the matter with W.P. (C) No. 8211/2010 on

09.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 9182/2016 TARUN SHARMA & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Adv.

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Sanjay Dewan and Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advs. for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.37138/2016 & 43587/2016

1 Counsel for the petitioners says that as directed, an affidavit has

been filed in terms of the order dated 15.03.2018.

2 To be noted, there is no appearance on behalf of the private respondents. Adverse orders are deferred.

3 Renotify the matter on 14.11.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 1936/2015 & C.M. Appl No.3472/2015 MERITRAC SERVICES PVT. LTD. MERITRAC SERVICES PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Nikhil Nayar, Ms. Jaspreet Sareen, Mr. Chirag Kher and Mr. Sahil Vinod, Advs.

versus

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED

..... Respondent

Through Mr. K.P.S. Kohli and Ms. Sharmistha Ghosh, Advs.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

1 No time left. It is already 05:00 PM.

2 Renotify the matter on 16.08.2018 in the category of „After Notice Misc. Matters‟

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4161/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.16345/2018 M/S AMBA DEVI PAPER MILLS LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Kunal Sachdeva, Adv.

versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Sanjiv Kakra and Mr. Irfan Ahmed, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018 1 Counsel for the petitioner says that since an application has already been moved before the DRT, this writ petition is not pressed.

2 Accordingly, as submitted, the writ petition is disposed of as

not pressed.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 5566/2015 M/S. PREM ICE FACTROY M/S. PREM ICE FACTROY

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Vijay Kumar and Mr. K.S. Kashyap, Advs. Kashyap, Advs.

versus

DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

..... Respondent

Through None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.17681/2018

1 This application has been filed, as according to the

applicant/petitioner, there is non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 10.10.2017. The operative directions contained in the said order required the respondent to dispose of the petitioner‟s appeal within period of six weeks. Counsel for the applicant/petitioner says that needful has not been done. 2 Issue notice.

3 Renotify the matter on 30.07.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4656/2018 & C.M. Appl. Nos.17960-61/2018 VAIBHAV SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Heena Malik, Adv.

versus

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. P.S. Singh and Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018 1 Counsel for the petitioner, after some arguments, seeks leave to withdraw the petition to take recourse to an appropriate remedy for reviving the defaulting company.

2 Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4659/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.17967/2018 DINESH JOTWANI

..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Harpreet Oberoi, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

1 Counsel for the petitioner, after some arguments, seeks leave to withdraw the petition to take recourse to an appropriate remedy for reviving the defaulting company.

2 Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4663/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.17976/2018 RAJ KUMAR ARORA AND ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through Mr. Johnson Subba and Mr. Affaizi, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018 1 Counsel for the petitioners, after some arguments, seeks leave to withdraw the petition to take recourse to an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

2 Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4649/2018 DILBAGH RAI CHAWLA AND ANR. DILBAGH RAI CHAWLA AND ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through

Mr. Kumar Chitranshu, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.17948/2018

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4649/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.17947/2018

2 Issue notice.

3 Mr. Sanjay Kumar accepts notice on behalf of the official

respondents.

4 Renotify the matter on 09.05.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4642/2018 MR. ANUJ KAPOOR AND ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through Mr. Ritik Malik and Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advs. Kumar, Advs.

versus

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Mr. Sanjay Pal, Adv for R-1 & R-2.

Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC for UOI/R-3.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.17910/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4642/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.17909/2018

2.Issue notice.

3. Mr.Diwakar, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the official

respondents.

4. To be noted the petitioners are Directors on the Boards of several companies including the defaulting company. The record shows that the defaulting company, goes by the name Vima Ice Factory Private Limited (“VIPL”).

5. The Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (in short “Scheme”)

has came to an end on 01.05.2018.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an appeal under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been filed to seek revival of VIPL.

6.1 It is stated that the appeal is pending adjudication before the NCLT. Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the DIN & DSC of the petitioners has not been activated by the ROC, the petitioners, who are Directors on the Boards of other companies, which are active and fully functional, will get impacted adversely.

7. This aspect of the matter, to my mind, needs to be examined by the official respondents.

7.1 Mr. Diwakar, learned CGSC, seeks short accommodation to obtain instructions.

8. Accordingly, at request renotify the matter on 09.05.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 9899/2017 SHREEYAM POWER AND STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Harsh Virmani, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

1 Counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation.

2 The request is not opposed by Mr. Jetly.

3 Renotify the matter on 19.11.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 9900/2017 SHREEYAM POWER AND STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Harsh Virmani, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

1 Counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation.

2 The request is not opposed by Mr. Jetly.

3 Renotify the matter on 19.11.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 9900/2017 SHREEYAM POWER AND STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Harsh Virmani, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

1 Counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation.

2 The request is not opposed by Mr. Jetly.

3 Renotify the matter on 19.11.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4639/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.17905/2018 NEERAJ GUPTA NEERAJ GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Rajesh Gogha, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Gogha, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018

1 Issue notice.

2 Mr. Shukla, learned CGSC, accepts notice on behalf of the

respondent.

3 Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within three weeks.

4 Rejoinder thereto, if any be filed before the next date of

hearing.

5 Renotify the matter on 07.08.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 9663/2016 & C.M. Appl. No.38695/2016 M/S S S DEVELOPERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

..... Respondents

Through Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Mr. Tushar Mathur, Advs Mr. Tushar Mathur, Advs

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

1 Counsel for the respondents seeks further time to file counter

affidavit.

2 The request is acceded to.

3 Counter affidavit be filed within three weeks, failing which, the

opportunity given to file counter affidavit shall stand closed.

4 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of

hearing.

5 Renotify the matter on 19.11.2018.

6 Interim orders to continue in the meanwhile.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2767/2013 KANGARO INDUSTRIES (REGD.)

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Bhuvneshwar Tyagi, Adv.

versus

KANIN (INDIA) PVT.LTD. & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Counsel for the respondents. (appearance not given.)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018 1 Counsel for the parties seek accommodation on account of the fact that Civil Appeal No.5007/2008 filed in the Supreme Court is pending adjudication and that its result could have impact on the instant case.

2 At request, renotify the matter on 03.12.2018.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4621/2018 K MAHENDRA SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Kamal Gupta with

..... Petitioners

Ms. Umang Tripathi, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018 C.M. Appl. No.17839/2018(Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4621/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.17838/2018

2. This is writ petition which assails the communication dated 20.04.2018, issued by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Government of India, as also an earlier communication dated 19.04.2018 as has been referred to in the communication dated 20.04.2018.

3. Counsel for the petitioners states that the communication dated 19.04.2018 was not served on the petitioners.

4. Be that as it may, the net effect of the communication dated 20.04.2018 is that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed by the petitioners with ASI for running cafeteria at Purana Qila and Safdurjung Tomb is not extended.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were given license to

run Cafeteria at Purana Qila and Safdurjung Tomb. The license given to the petitioner was for period of one year with clause for further extension upto two years, albeit, with the mutual consent of parties which includes ASI.

6. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned counsel who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondents, states that decision has been taken not to extend the MoU beyond one year as conservation work has to be carried out at the aforementioned monuments.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had legitimate expectation that the MoU would be extended. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through Clause 9.02 and 9.04 of the National Policy for the Conservation of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains, 2014.

7.1 In addition thereto, the learned counsel has also relied upon the Request For Proposal dated 29.12.2016 („RFP‟). In sum, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that policy decision was taken that all ancient monuments should have around-the-clock facilities for convenience of visitors, which included kiosk/cafeteria. It is, thus, the submission of the petitioners that closure of the cafeteria will cause inconvenience to the public apart from the fact that it would economically impact the petitioners.

8. Having regard to the submissions of the counsel, according to me, since the petitioners are licensees they do not have any legal right to continue beyond the terms of the engagement incorporated in the license. Insofar as the submission advanced on behalf of the

petitioners with regard to the legitimate expectation is concerned, it would square off against ASI‟s stand, which is, that the site is required for carrying out the conservation.

9. To my mind, public interest, which requires conservation of ancient monuments, would trump the legitimate expectation of the petitioners in having the license conrinued beyond the period of one year. Needless to say, the respondents will provide necessary facilities to the visitors, if not at the subject site(s), then at location which is proximate.

10. The writ petition along with all pending applications is, accordingly, dismissed.

MAY 02, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 5175/2017, CM Appl.No.22093/2017 M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI COTSYNS LIMITED & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Manisha Dhir with Mr. K.P.S.Kohli & Mr. Pranav Gambir, Advs.

versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur with Ms. Khushboo Kapur Advs. for SBI.

Mr. H.S.Parihar &

Mr. K.S.Parihar, Advs. for RBI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018

At joint request, list on 8.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6997/2016, CM App.No.28760/2016 MOHD. YAMEEN & ORS ..... Petitioners

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Through:

..... Respondents

Ms. Barkha Babbar with

Mr. Dipanjay Tyagi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

At joint request, list on 26.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4634/2018 SHRI DASHARTH SINGH TANWAR ..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ayush Choudhary with

Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Adv.

versus

DISCIPLINARY DIRECTORATE, INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R % 02.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.17878/2018 (Exemption)

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4634/2018

2 The record shows that the petitioner has lodged complaint qua respondent no.2 with the institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that neither was he called for the hearing nor does it is the impugned order dated 11.10.2017, disclose any reasons.

3 Issue notice to the respondents. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto be filed before the next date of hearing.

4 List on 22.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4628/2018 DR P SINHA ..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. D.K.Devesh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Vinod Kumar with Ms. Anju Gupta &

Mr. R.L.Goel, Advs. for R-1 & 3.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018 C.M. Appl. No.17852/2018 (Exemption)

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4628/2018

2 Issue notice.

3. Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 3.

4. On steps being taken by the petitioner, notice shall issue to respondent no.2. In addition, service be effected via private mode as well.

5. Counter affidavit be filed within two weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

6. To be noted, in this writ petition, the petitioner is claiming reimbursement of the balance sum of his medical claim. The sum claimed by the petitioner is Rs.2,17,208/- along with interest at the rate of 18%.

It is the petitioner‟s stand that while it is accepted by

7. It is the petitioner‟s stand that while it is accepted by respondent no.3 that the petitioner had to be admitted to the hospital in an emergent condition, albeit, in non-empanelled hospital, the expenses claimed have not been reimbursed only on the ground that he was required to be treated for Urinary infection and not for cancer. 8. This aspect of the matter will be examined on the next date of hearing. List the matter on 4.7.2018.

MAY 02, 2018 ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4038/2018 MS SAMARAH K. MALANEY THROUGH HER MOTHER MS. NEESH KHATAU ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Aayushi Sharma, Adv. versus EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh with Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018 CM App.No.17922/2018

1. This is an application moved on behalf of the respondent.

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms Aayushi Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/petitioner. Learned counsel states that she does not wish to file reply to the captioned application.

4. Counsels are, however, agreed that the fourth trial will be held on 14.5.2018 followed by the fifth trial which will be held on 16.5.2018.

5. I am also informed by learned counsel for the applicant/respondent

that arrangements have been made for the trials to be supervised by three Judges out of which one would be foreign Judge.

6. Accordingly, as prayed, the application is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

7. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 02, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2670/2018 M/S DR. RANDHAWA ULTRASONOGRAPHY IMAGING AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE ..... Petitioner M/S DR. RANDHAWA ULTRASONOGRAPHY IMAGING AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Khawaja Siddiqui,

Mr. Ashwini Kumar & Mr. Arup Sinha, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with

Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Adv. for UOI.

Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC with Mr. Abhimanyu Verma,

Dr. Girish Shastri, Distt. Nodal Officer, PS & PNDT Cell (West Distt.) Cell (West Distt.)

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018

CM No.17919/2018

1.The date fixed in the matter is 4.9.2018.

2.Since, Mr. Suhail Dutt, learned Senior Counsel states that there

is urgency, list the matter on 7.8.2018.

3. Accordingly, the date already fixed i.e. 4.9.2018 shall stand

cancelled.

4. In the meanwhile, the respondents will file counter affidavit in the matter, as already directed, within three weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

MAY 02, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 11481/2017 X AND ANR. ..... Petitioner X AND ANR. ..... Petitioner

Through: None.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Adv. for

Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

02.05.2018

CM Appl No.17931/2018

1. This is an application seeking Condonation of delay. The

application has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The period of delay involved is 52 days.

2. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned.

The Registry will formally take on record the counter affidavit.

3. The application is accordingly disposed of.

MAY 02, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 8051/2016 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC

versus

SUBHASH CHNDRA AGRAWAL

Through: None

..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 02.05.2018

CM App.No.17923/2018

1. This is an application moved by the petitioner for issuance of fresh notice to the respondent. For the reasons given therein, the prayer made therein is allowed.

2. On steps being taken by the petitioner, fresh notice shall issue to the respondent. In addition, service be effected via private mode as well. to the respondent. In addition, service be effected via private mode as well.

3. The application is accordingly disposed of.

MAY 02, 2018/ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4219/2018 MS. PI AND ORS.

..... Petitioners Through Ms. Vrinda Grover and Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Advs.

versus

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through Ms. Gini J. Rautray, Standing Counsel for the JNU. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari and Mr. Shashwat Singh, Advs for R-4. Mr. Satyakam, ASC for R-5 & R-6 with SI Preeti.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.16548/2018 (Exemption)

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4219/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.16547/2018

2 Ms. Rautray, who appears for respondent nos. 1 to 3 has indicated to the Court that pursuant to the last hearing two-member Fact Finding Committee has been set up by the Vice-Chancellor comprising Professor Binod Kumar Kanaujia, SC&IS and Professor Bhujang S. Waghmare, CSLG.

3. Furthermore, the learned counsel has informed the Court that respondent no.4 has resigned from all Administrative Committees and

is no longer the warden of Chandrabhaga Hostel.

4. Learned counsel further states that respondent no.4 has been advised not to use Laboratory No.409 which is attached to the School of Life Sciences (SLS). It is also the submission of Ms. Rautray that respondent no.4 will be asked to use separate laboratory for his work at JNU.

5. Ms. Grover who appears for the petitioner has, in sum, stated that it is the bounden duty of JNU, which is classified as Higher Education Institution, to provide safe working environment to the petitioners i.e. the complainants.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the insistence on the part of JNU officials that the petitioners should access the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is not borne out from the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short “2013 Act”).

7. Ms. Grover states that the petitioners have no confidence in the presently constituted ICC and that they desire to pursue the criminal proceedings which stand already triggered, as noted in the previous order of the Court.

8. During the course of the arguments, Ms. Grover drew my attention to an e-mail dated 26[th] April, 2018 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, wherein inter alia, petitioner no.1 has adverted to her face-off with respondent no.4. Ms. Grover has also referred to other e-mails, whereby, she tried to impress upon the court that despite apprehensions expressed about safety and security, no concrete action has been taken. In particular, emphasis is placed on the fact that no

restraint has been put on respondent no.4‟s presence on the campus. It is Ms. Grover‟s submission that the presence of respondent no.4 would create “chilling effect” and, in sense, dissuade the petitioners/complainants and potential witnesses from deposing freely before the concerned authorities.

9. In support of her submissions, Ms. Grover has also referred to the UGC Regulations which were notified on 2[nd] May, 2016, as also, judgment of Single Judge of this court in the matter of: U.S. Verma, Principal, DPS & Anr. vs. National Commission for Women & Ors., 2009 SCC Online Delhi 3200.

10. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel who represents respondent no.4 submits that his client has been recently served with notice and that he would require time to respond.

10.1 It is also the submission of learned Senior counsel that additional documents had not been served on respondent no.4.

11. The broad defence taken on behalf of the respondent no.4 is that the complaints made against him are motivated and that they were triggered on account of an e-mail sent by him with regard to poor attendance of the petitioners.

12. During the course of the arguments advanced by Ms. Rautray, I had indicated to the learned counsel that since the Fact Finding Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor comprises only of male members, it may help the process of enquiry if lady professor is also brought on board.

13. Ms. Rautray, fairly, states that she will convey the concern of the court to the Vice-Chancellor and, if necessary, take corrective

measures.

14. Since, Ms. Rautray has already indicated the various steps that the Vice-Chancellor has taken in the interest of fair enquiry I intend to make them part of my order to give certainty as to the manner in which the process shall move hereafter:

i)Respondent no.4 will not be part of any Administrative Committee. Committee.

ii)Respondent no.4 will not take charge as warden of any hostel which has women inmates. hostel which has women inmates.

iii)Respondent no.4 will not visit or use Laboratory No.409. iv)The Vice-Chancellor will find an alternative supervisor for petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.4. The needful will be done within the shortest possible time. iv)The Vice-Chancellor will find an alternative supervisor for petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.4. The needful will be done within the shortest possible time.

v)JNU will consider the advisability of sending respondent no. 4 on leave. This decision can be taken by JNU after the Fact Finding Committee returns its findings in the matter. no. 4 on leave. This decision can be taken by JNU after the Fact Finding Committee returns its findings in the matter.

15. It is made clear that the aforementioned directions have been issued, albeit, based on the stand taken by Mr. Rautray, to provide safe working environment to the petitioners as serious allegations have been made against respondent no.4, which are yet to be tested before an appropriate forum.

15.1 In my view, it is also in the interest of respondent no.4 to reduce the chance of interaction with the complainants or potential witnesses.

16. Respondent no.4 will file his counter affidavit within two

weeks from today.

17. Mr. Grover will ensure that the additional documents filed in the matter are served on respondent no.4 or his counsel.

18. Ms. Rautray will also ensure that by the next date of hearing, the findings of the Fact Finding Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor are placed before the Court.

19. Mr. Satyakam states that as directed by this Court, the statements made by the petitioner under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were shown to the Vice-Chancellor.

19.1 Ms. Rautray affirms this position.

20. status report has been filed by the Investigating Officer. 20.1 Mr. Satyakam states that fresh status report will be filed before the next date of hearing.

21. Renotify the matter on 23.5.2018.

22. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

MAY 02, 2018 ak

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 921/2015 & CM Appl. No.1611/2015

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner

Through: Proxy counsel for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. Adv.

versus

SURENDER PAL ..... Respondent

Through: Proxy counsel for Mr. S.K. Pathak, Adv. Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R02.05.2018

1. request for accommodation is made by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that there is bereavement in his family. Request is not opposed.

2. Accordingly, renotify the matter on 13.11.2018.

3. In the meantime, interim order will continue to operate.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3064/2014

CANE AGRO ENERGY (INDIA) LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv.

versus

THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Through: None.

..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R

% 02.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks and is granted further three weeks to

file rejoinder.

2. Renotify the matter on 12.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1996/2014 & CM Appl. No.4173/2014

M/S ROSE VALLEY REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTIONL LTD. ..... Petitioner CONSTRUCTIONL LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

At request of the counsel for the petitioner, renotify the matter on

29.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4562/2012

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Through: None.

..... Petitioner

versus

MUKESH AGRAWAL

..... Respondent

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 02.05.2018

1. There is no representation on behalf of either side.

2. Adverse orders are deferred.

3. Renotify the matter on 30.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3897/2018 & CM Appl. No.15385-15386/2018 NEEMA TAMANG & ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Adv. for Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Advs. NEEMA TAMANG & ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Adv. for Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Advs. versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Siwetank Singh, Advs. for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R02.05.2018

1. Counsel for the petitioners seeks accommodation. Request is not opposed by the counsel for respondents.

2. I am told that the connected writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1086/2018 is coming up for hearing on 27.7.2018.

3. Accordingly, renotify the matter on 27.7.2018 along with W.P.(C)

No.1086/2018.

4. In the meanwhile, interim order will continue to operate.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2515/2018

RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Rajni Kant with Ms. Parul

Agarwal, Advs.

versus

STATE (GNCTD) AND ORS. Through: Through:

..... Respondent

Ms. Anya Singh, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R

% 02.05.2018

1. Issue notice.

2. Ms. Anya Singh accepts notice for respondent No.1.

3. On steps being taken, notice shall issue to respondent No.2 & 3.

Additional service be effected via private mode as well.

4. Renotify the matter on 9.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2368/2018

LALIT KUMAR GOEL, SOLE PROPRIETOR,

GOEL NCONSTRUCTION CO. ..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ankur Gosain, Adv.

versus

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Adv. for DMRC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018

CM Appl. No.9926/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.2368/2018

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Johri accepts notice for the respondent/DMRC.

4. Mr. Gosain, who appears for the petitioner, says that he will file an additional affidavit setting out the fact that it has entered into contract with

the respondent/DMRC and that there is possibility of disputes erupting between the parties herein.

5. Let the needful be done within 10 days from today.

6. It is to be noted that via this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the fee schedule circulated by the respondent/DMRC via impugned circular dated 26.5.2017.

7. Renotify the matter on 17.8.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4678/2018 & CM. APPL. No.18006-07/2018

KHIROD CHANDRA MALICK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Satvik Bajaj, Adv. versus Through: Mr. Satvik Bajaj, Adv. versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for R-1 to 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 02.05.2018

1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks

permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the NCLT for appropriate relief.

2. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

3. Pending applications shall stand closed.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4677/2018 & CM. APPL. No.18004-05/2018

DEEPIKA BUGALIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ketan Madan with Ms. Himanshu Harbola, Advs. Through: Mr. Ketan Madan with Ms. Himanshu Harbola, Advs.

versus

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R

% 02.05.2018

1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the NCLT for appropriate relief.

2. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

3. Pending applications shall stand closed.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4676/2018 & CM. APPL. No.18002-18003/2018

SAMIRA DEWAN SURI & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ketan Madan with Ms. Himanshu Harbola, Advs. Through: Mr. Ketan Madan with Ms. Himanshu Harbola, Advs.

versus

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R

% 02.05.2018

1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the NCLT for appropriate relief.

2. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

3. Pending applications shall stand closed.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4667/2018

INSIYA SHEHZAD HEMANI

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Giriraj Subramanium with Mr.Prateek Chadha, Mr.Vikash Pathak, Mr. Simarpal Singh Sawhney and Mr. Sidhant Krishan Singh, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 02.05.2018

1. Issue notice to the respondents.

2. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj accepts notice for the respondents.

3. Counter affidavit, if any, will be filed within four weeks from today.

Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

4. Renotify the matter on 10.9.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4665/2018

POONAM GUPTA ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Adv.

versus

DELHI JAL BOARD

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 02.05.2018

CM. APPL. No. 17980/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4665/2018

2. Issue notice to the respondent.

3. Counter affidavit, if any, will be filed within three weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

4. Renotify the matter on 22.10.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4652/2018

SH. RAMESH BHARDWAJ

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rohit Malik, Adv.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC with Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Yeeshu Jain with Mr. Devansh Bhatnagar, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. for R-3. Through: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC with Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Yeeshu Jain with Mr. Devansh Bhatnagar, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 02.05.2018

CM. APPL. No. 17953/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.4652/2018

2. Counsel for the petitioner says that he will file the title documents to demonstrate the ownership of the seller in the subject property. The person who sold the subject property to the petitioner appears to be, one, Sheela

Devi.

3. Let the needful be done within two weeks from today.

4. Renotify the matter on 4.7.2018.

MAY 02, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 11102/2017 & CM APP Nos.4385/2017 SHRI SHARAD YADAV

..... Petitioner Through Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv with Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Ms. Md. Nizam Pasha, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Ms. Sneha Iyer, Mr. Aditya Bhatt and Mr. Javed-ur-Rahman, Advs.

versus

SHRI RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gopal Singh, Ms. Apoorva Srivastava and Mr. B.K. Shahi, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv with Mr. Prasad and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advs for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018 CM APP No. 8213/20181 At request of counsel for the parties, renotify the matter on 23.05.2018.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 11672/2017 & CM APP No. Appl. Nos.47424-27/2017SHRI. ALI ANWAR ANSARI SHRI. ALI ANWAR ANSARI

..... Petitioner Through Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv with Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Ms. Dd. Nizam Pasha, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Ms. Sneha Iyer, Mr. Aditya Bhatt and Mr. Javed-ur-Rahman, Advs.

versus

SHRI RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gopal Singh, Ms. Apoorva Srivastava and Mr. B.K. Shahi, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv with Mr. Prasad and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advs for R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 03.05.2018 1At request of counsel for the parties, renotify the matter on

23.05.2018.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 582/2018 ZAINAB MOOJID NEAHMAH

..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Liz Mathew and Ms. Purnima Krishnan, Advs.

versus

JOINT SECRETARY (FOREIGNERS) & ANR

..... Respondents

Through Ms. Mallika Hiremath for Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 03.05.2018

1 Request for accommodation is made on behalf of Mr.Amit Mahajan on the ground that he is unwell. Request is not opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2 Renotify the matter on 09.07.2018.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4499/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.17301/2018 CESC LIMITED CESC LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through Mr. A.M. Singhavi, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advs with Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Ms Saman Ahsani and Mr. Aditya Ganju, Advs. Tripathi, Sr. Advs with Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Ms Saman Ahsani and Mr. Aditya Ganju, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents Through Ms Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Harsh Ahuja and Mr. Vibhu Tripathi, Advs for R-1 & R-2. Mr. Kashish Narang, Adv for ICICI Bank. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Harsh Ahuja and Mr. Vibhu Tripathi, Advs for R-1 & R-2. Mr. Kashish Narang, Adv for ICICI Bank.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 03.05.2018 1 Issue notice.

2. Ms. Monika Arora appears on advance notice for respondent

No.1 & 2.

3. It is to be noted that the facts obtaining in the present case are identical to the facts obtaining in W.P.(C) No.4655/2018. Counsel for both the parties say that this writ petition can be disposed of, broadly, based on the directions passed in the aforementioned matter. W.P.(C) No.4499/2018 Pg.1 of 2

4. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner is given liberty to approach the Tribunal within two weeks from today. two weeks from today.

(ii) Pending adjudication by the Tribunal, the operation of the impugned communication dated 25.4.2018 shall remain stayed. impugned communication dated 25.4.2018 shall remain stayed.

(iii) In case the decision rendered by the Tribunal is against the interest of the petitioner, the said decision will not be enforced for period of two weeks thereafter. interest of the petitioner, the said decision will not be enforced for period of two weeks thereafter.

(iv) It is made clear that if the petitioner does not approach the Tribunal within two weeks from today the interim protection granted will stand dissolved. Tribunal within two weeks from today the interim protection granted will stand dissolved.

5. Pending application stand closed.

6. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

W.P.(C) No.4499/2018 Pg.1 of 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4351/2018 SAEED UR REHMAN & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through Mr. Rizwan and Mohd. Nadeem Khan, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents Through Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Madhav Chitale, Adv for R-1 & R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 03.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.16860/2018

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4351/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.16859/2018

2 Counsel for the petitioners says that an affidavit was filed. The affidavit is however not on record. Counsel would take steps.

3 Renotify the matter on 25.07.2018.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4352/2018 AARTI KHANTWAL

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1 Counsel for the petitioners says that an affidavit was filed. The affidavit is however not on record.

2 Renotify the matter on 30.07.2018.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4353/2018 YOGESH KHANTWAL

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.16865/2018

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4353/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.16864/2018

2 Counsel for the petitioners says that an affidavit was filed. The

affidavit is however not on record.

3 Renotify the matter on 30.07.2018.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4687/2018 BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD & ANR

..... Petitioners Through Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms. Vasudha Sen, Mr. Arjun Asthana and Mr. Parinay T. Vasandani, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents Through Mr. Nitish Gupta for Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC for R-1 & R-2. with Mr. Kundan from the Department. Mr. Atul Jha and Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advs for R-3.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

C.M. Appl No.18021/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4687/2018 & C.M. Appl No.18020/2018

2. Issue notice. 3. Mr. Nitish Gupta accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1

4. Vide this writ petition, challenge is laid to the notice dated 25.04.2018. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that issue arising in the instant case is similar to the issue arising in the W.P. (C) No.4655/2018 titled: Hindalco Industries

Limited vs. Union of India and Others. Learned counsel for the respondents says that this Court may pass an order similar to the order passed in W.P. (C) 4655/2018 on 2.05.2018.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner is given liberty to approach the Tribunal within two weeks from today.

(ii) Pending adjudication by the Tribunal, the operation of the impugned communication dated 25.4.2018 shall remain stayed.

(iii) In case the decision rendered by the Tribunal is against the interest of petitioner, the said decision will not be enforced for period of two weeks thereafter.

(iv) It is made clear that if the petitioner does not approach the Tribunal within two weeks from today, the interim protection granted, today, will stand dissolved.

6. Pending application shall stand closed.

7. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4480/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.17259/2018 SUNFLAG IRON AND STEEL CO LTD SUNFLAG IRON AND STEEL CO LTD

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv with Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Ms Saman Ahsani and Mr. Aditya Ganju, Advs. Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Ms Saman Ahsani and Mr. Aditya Ganju, Advs.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents Through Ms Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Harsh Ahuja and Mr. Vibhu Tripathi, Advs for R-1 & R-2. Mr. Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Khushboo Kapur, Advs for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R03.05.2018

1 Issue notice.

2 Mr. Monika Arora accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1

3 By virtue of this writ petition, challenge is made to the notice dated 25.04.2018. Mr. Monika Arora, who appears for the respondent no.1 & 2, says that the issue raised in the present writ petition is similar to the issue arising in the W.P. (C) No.4655/2018 titled: Hindalco Industries Limited vs. Union of India and Others. In these circumstances, learned

counsel for the respondents says that similar directions be issued in the captioned petition.

4 Accordingly, the writ petition and CM. No. 17259/2018 are disposed of in terms of the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner is given liberty to approach the Tribunal within two weeks from today.

(ii) Pending adjudication by the Tribunal, the operation of the impugned communication dated 25.4.2018 shall remain stayed.

(iii) In case the decision rendered by the Tribunal is against the interest of petitioner, the said decision will not be enforced for period of two weeks thereafter.

(iv) It is made clear that if the petitioner does not approach the Tribunal within two weeks from today, the interim protection granted, today, will stand dissolved.

5 To be noted, Mr. Rajiv Kapur, who appears on behalf of the State Bank of India/respondent No.3 informs me that communication dated 26.04.2018 was sent to the official respondents i.e., the beneficiaries, informing them that there have been no invocation of the subject bank guarantee for the reasons given therein.

6 In these circumstances, for the moment no order needs to be passed qua the subject bank guarantee. The aforementioned interim protection granted by me is confined to the contents of the notice dated 25.04.2018. In other words what is stated at the foot of the impugned notice in the form of directive to the State Bank of India/respondent no. 3 will not be covered by the interim directions passed today

7 Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

8 Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 674/2015 & C.M. Appl. No.1181/2015 SAI CINE PRODUCTIONS

..... Petitioner

Through Proxy counsel for the petitioner (appearance not given.) (appearance not given.)

versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through

Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with

Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with

Mr. Harshul Choudhary, Mr. Sahil

Sood, Ms. Tejaswita, Mr. Prakash, Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs for UOI. Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 03.05.2018

1 Request for accommodation is made on behalf of Mr. Gonsal.

2 Renotify the matter on 19.07.2018.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 8484/2015 & C.M. Appl. No.18230/2015 KARTAR SINGH & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Arjun Pant, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 03.05.2018 1 Learned counsel for the parties say that since the petitioners‟

review petition is pending in the Supreme Court, the matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify the matter on 30.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2428/2015 & C.M. Appl Nos.4371/2015 & 12669/2016 TEK CHAND NARULA & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through Mr. S.N Chaudhari and Ms. Shruti Chaudhary, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr. K.K. Jha, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, ASC with Mr. Shashank Tiwari and Mr. Parth Vasisth, Advs for GNCTD. Mr. R.N. Vats, Standing Counsel for NDMC with Mr. Karan Kapur and Mr. Akshat Gupta, Advs.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 03.05.2018 1 Mr. Chaudhari has completed his submissions in the matter and written submissions filed by him are also on record. 2 Mr. Jha says that he is not well and, therefore, short accommodation be given. 3 Renotify the matter on 05.07.2018. 4 Mr. Jha will file his written submissions within two weeks from

today.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4946/2015 & C.M. Appl. Nos.8942/2015, 12422-31/2015 PRAKASH KEJRIWAL

..... Petitioner Through Mr. Abhishek Saket, Ms. Vijaya Singh, Mr. Manish Madhukar, Ms. Shabana Farah and Mr. Rahul Dubey, Advs. Singh, Mr. Manish Madhukar, Ms. Shabana Farah and Mr. Rahul Dubey, Advs.

versus

LT. GOVERNOR NCT & ORS

..... Respondents Through Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, ASC with Mr. Shashank Tiwari and Mr. Parth Vasisth, Advs for GNCTD. Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, Advocates for R-2 & R-3. SI Ram Tirath and ASI Kishan Pal, from Traffic Police. Mr. Shashank Tiwari and Mr. Parth Vasisth, Advs for GNCTD. Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, Advocates for R-2 & R-3. SI Ram Tirath and ASI Kishan Pal, from Traffic Police.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 03.05.2018 1 In this writ petition, in effect, the grievance raised by the petitioner is with regard to the central verge erected on the road running between Greater Kailash Part II from the entry point of W Block to Alaknanda.

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, concedes that the National Green Tribunal (NGT), vide its order dated 01.05.2015, has, in fact, put its seal of approval on the said central verge being retained.

2.1 I am also told by the counsel for the petitioner that the very same order of the NGT has been assailed by another entity (i.e. Don Bosco School) before the Supreme Court.

3 Counsel for the petitioner, thus, seeks liberty to take recourse to an appropriate proceeding to assail the said order, given the aforementioned circumstances.

4 Writ petition is disposed of with liberty, as prayed

5 All pending applications will also stand closed.

MAY 03, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

$~20 to 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 7984/2007 & CM APPL.15091/2007 NATIONAL MINERAL DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION NATIONAL MINERAL DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION

..... Petitioner Through Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Mr. Kailash Pandey and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocates versus GOVT OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Rabiya Singh Thakur & Ms. Shalini Nair, Advocates for UOI Mr. Atul Jha & Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocates for State of Chattisgarh (R-2) Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocate for R-3

WITH

W.P.(C) 9583/2007 & CM APPL.18004/2007

NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Mr. Kailash Pandey and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocates

versus

GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondent Through Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Rabiya Singh Thakur & Ms. Shalini Nair, Advocates for UOI Mr. Atul Jha & Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocates for State of Chattisgarh (R-2)

WITH

Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocate for R-3

W.P.(C) 9584/2007 & CM APPL.18007/2007

NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

..... Petitioner Through Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Mr. Kailash Pandey and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocates

versus

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Rabiya Singh Thakur & Ms. Shalini Nair, Advocates for UOI Mr. Atul Jha & Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocates for State of Chattisgarh (R-2) Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocate for R-3

AND

W.P.(C) 9585/2007 & CM APPL.18008/2007

NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

..... Petitioner Through Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Mr. Kailash Pandey and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocates

versus

GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Rabiya Singh Thakur & Ms. Shalini Nair, Advocates for UOI Mr. Atul Jha & Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocates for State of Chattisgarh

Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocate for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 03.05.2018

1.At joint request of counsels for parties, renotify the matter on

14.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6395/2016 & CM APPL.26145/2016 APEX LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. & ANR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Abir Roy & Ms. Darpan Bhuyan, Advocates APEX LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. & ANR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Abir Roy & Ms. Darpan Bhuyan, Advocates

versus

THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondent Through Mr. Vaibhav Gaggan, Ms. Neha Mishra & Ms. Aayushi Sharma, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Amit Gupta & Mr. Anshul Saroha, Advocates for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1.At joint request of counsels for parties, renotify the matter on 19.11.2018. 19.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4187/2007 & C.M. APPL. No.7873/2007 UOI UOI

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI

versus

MS. VEENA SIKRI

Through

..... Respondent

Mr. Asif Ahmed, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1.I am informed by counsels for the parties that LPA No.347/2010 is still pending adjudication. still pending adjudication.

2.Accordingly, accommodation is sought.

3.At joint request, renotify the matter on 28.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 2449/2018 & CM APPL.10186/2018 ABHAY KHANNA ABHAY KHANNA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Manish Tewari & Mr. Amit Pal, Advocates Pal, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondent

Through Mr. D. Gaurav Rohilla, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Advocate

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 03.05.2018

1.A request for accommodation is made on behalf of Mr. Ajay Dispaul on the ground that he is ill. Dispaul on the ground that he is ill.

2.During the course of arguments, Mr. Rohilla, who appears on behalf of the respondents, says that there are certain additional documents which need to be filed in the matter. behalf of the respondents, says that there are certain additional documents which need to be filed in the matter.

3.Liberty in that behalf is granted provided the filings so made is supported by an affidavit. The copies of additional documents and the affidavit filed along with will be provided to counsel for the petitioner. supported by an affidavit. The copies of additional documents and the affidavit filed along with will be provided to counsel for the petitioner.

4.Renotify the matter on 05.07.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 237/2018 & CM APPL.13567/2018 S. B. INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner S. B. INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through

versus

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLINGENCE AND ORS.

..... Respondent

Through Counsel for DRI

Mr. Aditya Singla, Sr. Standing

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

CM Appl.13567/2018

1.This is an application seeking modification of the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru. 05.02.2018 passed by Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru.

2.Accordingly, list this matter before the same bench on 11.05.2018, subject to the orders of Hon‟ble Acting Chief Justice. 11.05.2018, subject to the orders of Hon‟ble Acting Chief Justice.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 5131/2017 SONU ..... Petitioner SONU ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate

versus

THE DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, ENTT. & LUXURY TAX & ANR

..... Respondent

Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1.Counsel for petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition.

2.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3885/2017 & CM APPL.17141/2017 MAHESH KUMAR MAHESH KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate versus versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondent

Through Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate for R-1

Ms. Warisha Farasat, Advocate for R-2 SI Vishal Tiwari, PS Ambedkar Nagar R-2 SI Vishal Tiwari, PS Ambedkar Nagar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1.Ms. Warisha Farasat, who appears for respondent no.2/Delhi Police seeks time to file counter affidavit. Police seeks time to file counter affidavit.

2.Let the needful be done within four weeks.

3.Rejoinder thereto, if any, to the counter affidavit be filed before next date of hearing. next date of hearing.

4.Renotify the matter on 10.09.2018.

5.Interim order will continue to operate, in the meanwhile.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 974/2017 RAVISH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner RAVISH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Mohd. Shshir Sarwar, Advocate for Mr. R. K. Sdini, Advocate

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

..... Respondent

Through

Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC for

GNCTD with Ms. Mahamaya

Chatterjee, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 03.05.2018

1.Once again, time is sought to file rejoinder.

2.The request is not opposed by Mr. Narayan.

3.Accordingly, petitioners are granted three weeks to file rejoinder in the matter. in the matter.

4.Renotify the matter on 09.10.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 575/2017 & CM APPL.2642/2017 VISHAL INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. B. K. Singh, Mr. P. S. Bhullar & Mr. A. Kishore, Advocates VISHAL INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. B. K. Singh, Mr. P. S. Bhullar & Mr. A. Kishore, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through Through

..... Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

CM Appl.2642/2017

1. Record shows that on 23.01.2017 interim order was passed by

this court.

2. There is no representation on behalf of respondents.

3. Interim order dated 23.01.2017 is made absolute during the

pendency of the writ petition.

4. Accordingly, CM Appl.2642/2017 is disposed of.

W.P.(C) NO.575/2017

5. Renotify the matter on 14.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11816/2016, CM APPL.46611/2016 & CM APPL.2360/2017 MOHD MAQBOOL ..... Petitioner MOHD MAQBOOL ..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Seema Seth, Advocate versus versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel for DDA with Ms. Gauri Chaturvedi & Ms. Mrinalini Sharma, Advocate Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel for DDA with Ms. Gauri Chaturvedi & Ms. Mrinalini Sharma, Advocate

Mr. Prateek Dahiya, Advocate for R-2 SI Shyam Lal Dagar, PS Pal Prahladpur, South East Distt. SI Shyam Lal Dagar, PS Pal Prahladpur, South East Distt.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1.Sh. Dhanesh Relan, who appears for DDA, submits that counter affidavit was filed with the Registry on 02.05.2018 vide diary no.124247. affidavit was filed with the Registry on 02.05.2018 vide diary no.124247.

2.Mr. Relan will furnish copy of the counter affidavit to learned counsel for the petitioner. counsel for the petitioner.

3.Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

4.Mr. Dahiya, who appears for respondent no.2, seeks and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. three weeks time to file counter affidavit.

5.Rejoinder, if any, to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2 will be filed before the next date of hearing. will be filed before the next date of hearing.

6.Renotify the matter on 14.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 10484/2016, CM APPL.41128/2016 & CM APPL.653/2017 RAMESH THANWARDASS ..... Petitioner RAMESH THANWARDASS ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Pawan Kawrani, Advocate versus versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Sanjay Dewan & Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocates for R-1 Rohmetra, Advocates for R-1

Mr. N. K. Singh, Advocate for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for R-2 Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R

% 03.05.2018

1 Preliminary objection has been taken by counsel for respondent

1.1 Learned counsel says that neither the assessment order nor the order of the appellate authority has been challenged by the petitioner. 2 Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner says that he will take corrective action.

3At request, renotify the matter on 22.10.2018.

CM No.41128/2016

4 In view of the aforesaid situation obtaining the captioned application, at present, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 10421/2016 DELHI ANUSUCHIT JATI VIKAS SANGTHAN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Vikas Bapurao Pakmiddey, Advocate

versus

DEPARTMENT FOR THE WELFARE OF SC/ST/OBC/MINORITIES & ANR ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel for NDMC Mr. Sumit Jidani, Advocate for GNCTD

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1.Counsel for respondent no.1 is present in court. Learned counsel submits that he has been recently appointed as panel lawyer and therefore, would require short accommodation. submits that he has been recently appointed as panel lawyer and therefore, would require short accommodation.

2.The request for accommodation is not opposed by counsel for the petitioner. petitioner.

3.Accordingly, renotify the matter on 25.09.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 8284/2016 MANAV SEWA KUSTH SAMITI AND ORS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocate for Mr. Neeraj Kr. Sharma, Advocate

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Adv. for GNCTD Mr. G. D. Mishra, Standing Counsel for R-4/EDMC Mr. Ashutosh Ghade & Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocates for DDA

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R RO R R% 03.05.2018

1.A request is made on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner to file rejoinder. rejoinder.

2.Counsel for respondents submits that counter affidavit has already been filed. already been filed.

3.Petitioners are at liberty to file rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing. the next date of hearing.

4.Renotify the matter on 20.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6207/2016 HARVINDER SINGH GHAI ..... Petitioner HARVINDER SINGH GHAI ..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Kavita, Advocate

versus

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT)

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Sanjeev Narula, SSC for Customs

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1.Accommodation is sought on behalf of Mr. V. S. Negi, on the ground that he is not well. that he is not well.

2.The request is not opposed by counsel for the respondent.

3.At request, renotify the matter on 19.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 9587/2015 SUDHA RANI GUPTA AND ORS SUDHA RANI GUPTA AND ORS

..... Petitioners

Through Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Arun Baali & Mr. Kunal Nath, Advocates Mr. Kunal Nath, Advocates

versus

GOVT OF NCT AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Advocate for Through Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Advocate for

Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Advocate for

Mr.V. P. Rana with Ms.Pooja Wason, Advocates for R-3 Advocates for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1.Counsel for petitioners seeks to withdraw the present writ petition.

2.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

MAY 03, 2018/ab

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3020/2014 & CM APP No.6315/2014, 18076/2014

NOVARTIS INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj, Adv. Through: Mr. Manoj, Adv.

versus

NATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL PRICING AUTHORITY AND ANR

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Prateek Dhana and Mr. Saeed Qadri, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Anjana Gosain with Ms. Rabiya Singh Thakur and Ms. Shalini Nair, Advs. for R-3 & 4. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Prateek Dhana and Mr. Saeed Qadri, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Anjana Gosain with Ms. Rabiya Singh Thakur and Ms. Shalini Nair, Advs. for R-3 & 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1. Mr. Manoj, who appears for the petitioners, has argued in the

opening.

2. Renotify the matter for further arguments on 19.7.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7983/2012 & CM APP No.19969/2012

M/S KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL ..... Petitioner Through: None.

versus

M/S JASWANT SINGH BALWANT SINGH Through: None.

..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 03.05.2018

1. There is no representation on behalf of the parties.

2. Adverse orders are deferred.

3. Renotify the matter on 28.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

$~24 & 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 5515/2016 & CM APP No.23069/2016

GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Madan, Adv. for Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Adv. Through: Mr. Aditya Madan, Adv. for Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Adv.

versus

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR..... Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, ASC with Mr. Shashank Tiwari, Adv. for DOE. Through: Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, ASC with Mr. Shashank Tiwari, Adv. for DOE.

+ W.P.(C) 6934/2016 & CM APP No.28476/2016

GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Madan, Adv. for Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Adv. Through: Mr. Aditya Madan, Adv. for Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Adv.

versus

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDCUATION AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kanishk Rana, Adv. for Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for DOE. Through: Mr. Kanishk Rana, Adv. for Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for DOE.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 03.05.2018

1. request for accommodation is made on behalf of Mr. Jasmeet Singh on the ground that he has taken ill. Request is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents.

2. Renotify the matter on 20.11.2018.

MAY 03, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4572/2018

RAGHVENDRA AGARWAL AND ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Malik with Mr. Dhawal Jain, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R03.05.2018

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the list of disqualified directors published by the official respondents to the extent that it includes the names of the petitioners.

2. In this matter, I am informed by the learned counsel for the official respondents that the issues raised in the captioned matter are similar to those issues which have been raised before Division Bench-I in various matters pending before it.

3. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Directors on the Board of company by the name: Hindustan Biodiesel Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company").

4. To be noted, this matter came up for hearing on 01.05.2018 before this Court, where, the petitioners sought time to file an additional affidavit to bring on record the fact that the Company had neither carried on any business nor operated any bank account.

4.1 It is in this background that petitioner no. 2 to 4 have filed affidavits dated 02.05.2018.

4.2 The petitioners, thus, state that the Company has not carried on any business and has not operated its bank account since 2011. Furthermore, the petitioners state that they had not filed the Company’s financial statements and statutory returns as required under the extant provisions of law. The petitioners aver that it is on account of the aforementioned infraction of law that their names came to be included in the impugned list.

5. Counsel for writ petitioner(s) is agreed that the interim directions passed by this court and those which have been passed by the Division Bench can form the basis of the disposal of the present writ petition with right to revive the captioned petition, in respect of those issues which are not addressed by the Division Bench judgment.

6. Since the captioned writ petition was filed before the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 ("Scheme") was to expire, and information was sought by the Court, this writ petition can be disposed of based on directions passed in other matters. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the inclusion of the name(s) of the writ petitioner(s) is concerned, shall remain stayed. (ii) The DIN and DSC of the writ petitioner(s) will stand activated. (iii) The writ petitioner(s) will have liberty to apply under the Scheme. Permission is granted to make the requisite filings in the form of hard copies in consonance with Division Bench-I order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) 4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union Of India and Anr.

(iv) The writ petitioner will deposit, if not deposited already, sum of Rs.30,000/- qua each such company vis-a-vis whom steps for voluntary striking off are required to be taken. The said amount will be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the Registry of this court on or before 15.05.2018. The FDR will be created in favour of the ROC.

(v) The amount deposited by way of FDR, as adverted to in clause (iv), will be in addition to other charges that would be payable under the Scheme. These sums will be deposited in the form of FDR as well. The writ petitioner(s) will also furnish their calculations in that behalf.

7. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

8. The writ petitioner(s) will abide by the Division Bench-I order dated 21.03.2018, passed in batch of writ petitions, the lead petition being W.P. (C) 9439/2017, titled: Atul Khosla & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

9. Liberty, however, is given both to the petitioner and the official respondents to revive the petition(s), in case, there are issues which are not covered by the Division Bench judgment.

10. Needless to say, the disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the official respondents presenting their point of view before the Division Bench.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

12. It is made clear that if there is any other company apart from the subject company mentioned above, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies, resulting in the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the impugned list of disqualified directors, then, this order will not come in the way of necessary consequences in law flowing from such circumstance.

13. Dasti under signatures of the Court master.

MAY 03, 2018/pmc

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 11149/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 11962/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 11963/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 12002/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 12006/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 12006/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 12063/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 12069/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P.LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 12070/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 12071/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 12072/2005 M/S P.M.DIESELS P. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Divisht Kaushik, Adv

versus

M/S THUKRAL MECHANCIAL WORKS &

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018 1 Learned counsels for the parties submit that they are awaiting

the decision of IPAB and therefore the captioned matter be stood over.

2 At request, renotify on 14.11.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 5656/2012 C.M.MATHEW AND ANR

..... Petitioners Through Mr. Manoj V. George, Ms. Shilpa Liza George and Mr. Francis S. Correa, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

..... Respondents Through Mr. Anil Soni and Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Sanya Talwar, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Rajmangal Kumar, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Dubey, Advocate for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018 C.M. Appl. No.18094/20181 An early hearing application has been moved on behalf of the

petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner says that he was not informed that request for adjournment would be made to the Court.

2 Having regard to the assertions made in the application, the date already fixed i.e., 16.11.2018 is cancelled.

3 Renotify the matter on 06.09.2018 at the end of „After Notice Misc. Matters‟.

4 Application disposed of in the above terms.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 7728/2016 DEDICATED TO AVIATION SAFETY AND HEALTH DEDICATED TO AVIATION SAFETY AND HEALTH

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Vivek Kohli, Ms. Anubha Singh, Ms. Aishwarya Kaushiq with Ms. Gayatri Nandwani, Advocates. Ms. Aishwarya Kaushiq with Ms. Gayatri Nandwani, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION (DGCA) & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Rabiya Singh Thakur and Ms. Shalini Nair, Advocates. Singh Thakur and Ms. Shalini Nair, Advocates.

Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra, Ms. Bhanuja Dhami and Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Advocates for R-4. Dhingra, Ms. Bhanuja Dhami and Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Advocates for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018 C.M. Appl. No18192/20181 This is an application filed by DGCA for seeking enlargement

of time. The time frame was fixed by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2018.

2 Issue notice.

3 Mr. Kohli accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. Bhasin accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent No. 2.

4 Mr. Kohli and Mr. Bhasin say that they have no objection to the

prayer made in the application.

5 Accordingly, the time frame is extended by further period of 8 weeks subject to the DGCA/applicant‟s uploading the draft CAR by 15.05.2018. Needless to say that the draft CAR will be uploaded for inviting objections, if any. Pending the finalization of the fresh CAR, the existing CAR will continue to operate.

6 Application disposed of.

7 Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3839/2018 KARTIKEYA SHARMA AND ANR. KARTIKEYA SHARMA AND ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through Ms. Mudrika Bansal, Advocate. versus

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with Ms. Eshita Baruah, Advocae.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R

% 04.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.18191/2018

1 Issue notice.

2 Ms. Eshita Baruah accepts notice on behalf of the official

respondents.

3 By this application, the petitioners seek extension of time to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 18.04.2018.

4 The prayer made in the application is not opposed by the counsel for the official respondents.

5 Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. The petitioners will comply with the directions contained in the order dated 18.04.2018, latest by, 15.05.2018. comply with the directions contained in the order dated 18.04.2018, latest by, 15.05.2018.

6 Application is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

7 Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 04, 2018/A

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4532/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.17521/2018 ARUN KAPOOR ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Kanav Dev Sharma and Mr. Manu Dev Sharma, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj and Mr. Kanishk Arora, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018

1. On the last date i.e. 01.05.2018, the following order was

passed:-

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the defaulting company i. e. Tarz Support Services Private Ltd. had on its Board two Directors i.e. the writ petitioner herein (Mr. Arun Kapoor) and another person by the name of Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma took steps to avail of the benefit of the CODS-20 18 his name was removed from the impugned list of disqualified directors. It is stated that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, his name has not been excluded from the said list.

3. Mr. Kanishk who appears for the official respondents states that he will obtain instructions in the matter.

4. List on 4[th] May, 201 8.”

W.P.(C) 4532/2018 Page 1 of 2

2. Mr. Bhardwaj has returned with instructions. Learned counsel says that, inadvertently, the writ petitioner‟s name was not removed from the list of disqualified directors. It is submitted that the petitioner‟s name will be removed by the ROC from the list of disqualified directors within three weeks from today.

3. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of based on the statement made by Mr. Bhardwaj. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay on the operation of list of disqualified directors in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned. Furthermore, the writ petitioner‟s DIN & DSC will also be activated.

4. Dasti under signatures of the court master.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

W.P.(C) 4532/2018

Page 2 of 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4699/2018 & C.M. Appl. Nos.18101-02/2018 NITIN AGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Prachee Satija and Ms. Radkhika Gupta, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. P.S. Singh with Ms. Anu Singh, Advocates for R-1 & 2,

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 04.05.2018 1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. P.S. Singh accepts notice on behalf of the official

respondents.

3. In view of the order that I propose to pass, learned counsel for the respondents says that he does not wish to file counter affidavit in the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the defaulting company is an entity by the name Exey Technologies Private Limited (ETPL).

4.1 It is stated that ETPL at the relevant point in time had on its Board two Directors, that is, the petitioner and, one, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary.

4.2 It is further stated that Mr. Rajesh Choudhary has already moved the court by way of writ petition, which was numbered as W.P.(C)4481/2018. I am also informed that the said writ petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench -I.

W.P.(C) 4699/2018 Page 1 of 3

4.3 Learned counsel, in this behalf, has drawn my attention to Annexure A-1 appended to affidavit dated 03.05.2018, filed by Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, which has been placed before me, in Court, today. Annexure A-1 includes copy of the order dated 27.04.2018, passed in W.P. (C) No.4481/2018, titled: Rajesh Choudhary vs. Union of India and others.

4.4Vide this order, the Division Bench has permitted Mr. Rajesh Choudhary to avail of the benefits of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2013 (in short „Scheme‟). Furthermore, the Division Bench has also issued direction to activate Mr. Rajesh Choudhary‟s DIN.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that Mr. Rajesh Choudhary is in the process of making the requisite filings in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 27.04.2018.

6. Given this background, the only direction that the petitioner seeks is that his DIN and DSC be re-activated.

6.1 Mr. Singh, says, having regard to the order passed by the Division Bench, he does not wish to oppose the prayer made to this court.

7. Thus, having regard to the aforementioned circumstances, the ROC is directed to activate the petitioner‟s DIN and DSC. This direction is issued with the caveat and the assurance of the petitioner‟s counsel that Mr. Rajesh Choudhary will take the steps as envisaged in the Division Bench‟s order, dated 27.04.2018. In case the directions contained in the said order are not complied with, the ROC will be at liberty to withdraw and/or de-activate the petitioner‟s W.P.(C) 4699/2018 Page 2 of 3

DIN and DSC.

8. The Registry will scan and upload the affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, dated 03.05.2018, along with Annexure A-1, for the purposes of record.

9. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

10. Pending applications shall stand closed.

11. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

W.P.(C) 4699/2018

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4785/2018 MANOJ BHARGAVA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Sarwar Raza, Mr. Shubham Mohanti and Mr. Takrim Khan, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. A.P. Singh, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.18445/2018

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4785/2018

2 Issue notice.

3 Mr. A.P. Singh accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

4 Counter affidavit be filed within period of four weeks.

5 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.

6 Renotify the matter on 01.08.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4701/2018 NEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA NEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Sarwar Raza, Mr. Shubham Mahanti and Mr. Takrim Khan, Advocates. Mahanti and Mr. Takrim Khan, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Pratyush Miglani, Advocate for R-1 & 2. R-1 & 2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R R% 04.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.18105/2018

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4701/2018

2 Issue notice.

3 Mr. Pratyush Miglani accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents.

4 Counter affidavit be filed within period of four weeks.

5 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.

6 Renotify the matter on 01.08.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4702/2018 & C.M. Appl Nos.18106-07/2018 VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN AND ANR. VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN AND ANR.

..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Madhavi Khare, Advocate.

versus

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018

1 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ

petition with liberty to approach the NCLT to revive the defaulting company.

2 Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed

for.

3 All pending applications shall stand closed.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4713/2018 KUMAR DHANANJAY RAKESH KUMAR DHANANJAY RAKESH

..... Petitioner Through Mr. Shubham Mahanti, Mr. Sarwar Raza and Mr. Takrim Khan, Advcoates. Raza and Mr. Takrim Khan, Advcoates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Pratyush Miglani, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018

1 Issue notice.

2 Mr. Pratyush Miglani accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents.

3 Counter affidavit be filed within period of four weeks.

4 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.

5 Renotify the matter on 05.09.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4718/2018 SABS KPO SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.

versus

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI. UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No. 18143/2018

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4718/2018 & C.M. Appl. No. 18142/2018

2 Issue notice.

3 Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents.

4 Counter affidavit be filed within period of four weeks.

5 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.

6 Renotify the matter on 06.08.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4741/2018 & C.M. Appl. Nos.18223-24/2018 RAM NIWAS BANSAL AND ANR. RAM NIWAS BANSAL AND ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through

Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Mr. Tushar Mathur, Adv for R-1 & R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the writ

petition.

2. The same is dismissed as not pressed.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4751/2018 MANISH AGGARWAL AND ANR.

..... Petitioner

Through None.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Through

..... Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

% 04.05.2018

C.M. Appl No.18288/2018

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4751/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.18287/2018

2 There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Adverse

orders are deferred.

3. Renotify the matter on 7.9.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4769/2018 & C.M. Appl. No. 18420/2016 RAM DEV GUPTA RAM DEV GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Amit Mahajan and Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018

1 Issue notice.

2 Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents.

3 Counter affidavit be filed within period of four weeks.

4 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.

5 Renotify the matter on 20.08.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4780/2018 JYOTI KHANNA

..... Petitioner

Through None.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr. Suraj Kumar, Adv for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018

C.M. Appl No.18436/2018

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4780/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.18435/2018

2 There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Adverse

orders are deferred.

3. Renotify the matter on 24.08.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4786/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.18446/2018 SURUCHI SAWHNEY SURUCHI SAWHNEY

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Vivek Sibal, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Sr. Penal Counsel for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018

1 Issue notice.

2 Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents.

3 Counter affidavit be filed within period of four weeks.

4 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.

5 Renotify the matter on 04.09.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4680/2018 ABHISHEK GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Siddharth S. Dev, Adv.

versus

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Advs for R-1. Mr. Sanyam Saxena and Mr. Sahil Khanna, Advs for R-2 with Mr. J. Srinivas, Manager.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018 C.M. Appl. No.18013/20181 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. Appl. No.18013/20181 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4680/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.18012/2018

2 Issue Notice.

3 Mr. Bhatt accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Sanyam Saxena accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

4 Notice shall issue to respondent No.3 upon the petitioner taking appropriate steps in that behalf.

5 Record shows that the petitioner has claim against respondent No.3 which has been admitted by respondent No. 1 i.e. National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The petitioner seeks release of the money in terms of Clause 2 (h) of the SEBI circular.

6 Mr. Bhatt says that the Defaulters Committee constituted by respondent No. 1 is in the process of distributing the money, albeit, on prorata basis and that he shall file counter affidavit in that regard.

7 Accordingly, rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

8 Renotify the matter on 22.10.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4693/2018 SHASHANK GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Siddharth S. Dev, Adv.

versus

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Advs for R-1. Mr. Sanyam Saxena and Mr. Sahil Khanna, Advs for R-2 with Mr. J. Srinivas, Manager.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018

C.M. Appl. No.18063/2018

1 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4693/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.18062/2018

2 Issue Notice.

3 Mr. Bhatt accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Sanyam Saxena accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

4 Notice be issued to respondent No.3 on petitioner taking appropriate steps.

5 The record shows that the petitioner has claim against respondent No.3 which, concededly, has been admitted by respondent No. 1 i.e. National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The petitioner seeks the release of money in terms of Clause 2 (h) of the SEBI

circular.

6 Mr. Bhatt says that the Defaulter Committee constituted by respondent No. 1 is in the process of distributing the money on pro rata basis and that he shall file counter affidavit in that behalf.

7 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

8 Renotify the matter on 22.10.2018.

MAY 04, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4700/2018 MADHU GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Siddharth S. Dev, Adv.

versus

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Advs for R-1. Mr. Sanyam Saxena and Mr. Sahil Khanna, Advs for R-2 with Mr. J. Srinivas, Manager.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R R% 04.05.2018 C.M. Appl. No.18104/20181 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. Appl. No.18104/20181 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4700/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.18103/2018

2 Issue Notice.

3 Mr. Bhatt accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Sanyam Saxena accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

4 Notice shall issue to respondent No.3 upon the petitioner taking appropriate steps in that behalf.

5 Record shows that the petitioner has claim against respondent No.3 which has been admitted by respondent No. 1 i.e. National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The petitioner seeks release of the money in terms of Clause 2 (h) of the SEBI circular.

6 Mr. Bhatt says that the Defaulters Committee constituted by respondent No. 1 is in the process of distributing the money, albeit, on prorata basis and that he shall file counter affidavit in that regard.