2018 (3) TMI 2024 - HC - Companies Law

Disqualification of Directors - respective Company was also struck off from the role of the Registrar of Companies. The present grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that these petitioners even after obtaining the interim order of stay of disqualification from this Court, are not in a position to utilise the opportunity given in the said Scheme, since the very Company, in which they were holding such position, was also struck off and therefore, the DIN Number of the respective petitioners is not activated. HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the cases pending before this Court filed under the same set of facts and circumstances are also to be heard and decided finally, after filing of the individual counter in each cases by the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that as an interim measure, the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is to be applied to the present cases as well so that a uniformity will be maintained among the equals. Since this Court has entertained several writ petitions arising out of the same set of facts and granted interim order of stay and since all those writ petitions are not listed today, the following order will cover not only these petitioners and also the other petitioners, who have filed similar writ petitions before this Court, which are pending with interim orders granted therein. The respondents are directed to forthwith activate the DIN number of each writ petitioner in whose favour, the interim order of stay has been granted by this Court.

Issues:
1. Challenge to disqualification of directors and striking off of companies.
2. Inability to utilize Condonation of Delay Scheme due to struck-off companies.
3. Comparison with interim order of Delhi High Court.
4. Application of Delhi High Court's directions to the present cases.
5. Interim orders for activating DIN numbers and filing compliances under CODS-2018 Scheme.
6. Deposit of fees and charges under the scheme.
7. Directions for depositing charges and submission of documents.
8. Clarity on deposits made by directors and companies.
9. Timeline for filing counter affidavits and rejoinders.
10. Inclusion of all similarly situated persons under the interim order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the challenge faced by petitioners against their disqualification as directors and the striking off of their companies by the respondents. The petitioners were granted interim stay orders by the court, but they were unable to benefit from the Condonation of Delay Scheme due to the non-activation of their DIN numbers caused by the striking off of their companies from the Registrar of Companies.

2. The petitioners highlighted their grievance regarding the inability to utilize the Condonation of Delay Scheme despite the interim stay orders. This issue arose due to the companies being struck off, which prevented the activation of DIN numbers necessary for scheme participation.

3. The judgment references an interim order from the Delhi High Court, where similar circumstances were addressed. The Delhi High Court's directions aimed to protect the interests of parties, particularly concerning the activation of DIN numbers and compliance with the CODS-2018 Scheme.

4. The court decided to apply the directions issued by the Delhi High Court to the present cases pending before it. This decision was made to ensure uniformity and fairness among cases with similar facts and circumstances, emphasizing the need for consistency in interim measures.

5. The court issued interim orders directing the respondents to activate DIN numbers for petitioners with stay orders, allowing them to file compliances under the CODS-2018 Scheme as hard copies. The filings were to be preserved and subject to further court orders.

6. Specific directives were given for each petitioner to deposit fees and charges under the CODS-2018 Scheme in the court's registry. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with scheme requirements, including fee payments and document submissions.

7. Further instructions were provided regarding the submission of documents to the Registrar of Companies and the timeline for making deposits and filings, ensuring that compliance with the scheme was carried out effectively.

8. Clarity was given on the nature of deposits made by directors on behalf of their companies, emphasizing that duplicate payments were not necessary and specifying procedures for handling previous deposits.

9. The judgment set timelines for the filing of counter affidavits by respondents and rejoinders by petitioners, ensuring the progression of the legal process and the completion of pleadings.

10. The interim order extended to cover all similarly situated persons with pending writ petitions before the court, ensuring that the directives applied uniformly to all affected parties, without the need for separate orders for each individual.

← Previous Next →