9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1805 - HC - Companies LawCondonation of Delay Scheme -2018 - Restoration of name of from the Register of Companies - applicability of decision in the case of Sandeep Singh Anr. v. Registrar of Companies Ors 2018 (3) TMI 560 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that It is clarified that if the petitioners do not avail of the CODS-2018 or file the necessary documents as required for dissolution for the Company under Section 248(2) as stated above; in addition to other consequences, the petitioners would also be liable to be prosecuted for contempt of Court. HELD THAT - This petition can be disposed of with the direction that respondents will follow the directives contained in Sandeep Singh. It is made clear that the directives contained therein will apply to the petitioner mutatis mutandis. The petitioners will, however, take steps both in consonance with the provisions of Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 within a period of ten days from today.
Issues: Disqualification of directors for failure to file financial statements and annual returns, applicability of directives from a previous judgment, revival of companies under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, availing benefits under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.
Analysis: 1. Disqualification of Directors: The petitioners were disqualified as directors of two companies, IMPL and IAPL, due to their failure to file financial statements and annual returns, resulting in the companies being struck off the Register of Companies. The petitioners argued that these companies had not been operational for over three years, while they were actively involved in other functional companies. 2. Applicability of Previous Judgment: The petitioners contended that their disqualification issue was similar to a previous judgment involving Sandeep Singh & Anr. v. Registrar of Companies & Ors. The counsel for the respondents did not dispute this claim, leading to the decision that waiting for a counter affidavit was unnecessary as the respondents' stance aligned with the judgment in Sandeep Singh. 3. Revival of Companies and Compliance: The petitioners expressed their intention not to revive IMPL and IAPL but to take steps under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, in line with the directives from the Sandeep Singh judgment. Additionally, they sought to benefit from the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018, for resolving their disqualification status. 4. Court's Decision and Directions: The court directed the respondents to follow the directives from the Sandeep Singh judgment concerning the petitioners, with a stipulation that the petitioners must comply with Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018, within ten days. The operation of the disqualification list concerning the petitioners was stayed until 31.3.2018 or until the respondents made a decision regarding the petitioners' requests. 5. Compliance and Further Actions: The petitioners were instructed to take necessary actions within ten days, and the Registrar of Companies was directed to activate the petitioners' DIN and DSC. Consequently, one of the CM applications was closed, and the order was issued for Dasti delivery of the judgment.
|
