9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent no.1 to issue a separate show cause notice indicating the material on which such a view is premised and take an appropriate decision after hearing the petitioner. All contentions of the parties in this regard are reserved. - W.P.(C) 211/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - MR. VIBHU BAKHRU J. Petitioner Through: Ms Pragya Parijat Singh and Mr Prashant Singh, Advocates with Ms Rupali Grover, AR of the petitioner. Respondents Through: Mr Ashim Sood, CGSC with Mr Aditya Kumar, Advocates for R-1. O R D E R 1. Issue notice. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 accepts notice. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, on being reflected as a defaulting director of a Vanishing Company i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet for the financial year 1999-2000. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 29.05.2002 was issued to the petitioner and all other persons who were Directors of the Company alleging that the Company had failed to implement the project for which public issue of equity was made. 9. Thereafter, a criminal case was filed by the Registrar of Companies (being Criminal Case bearing No. 200068/2003) under Section 63, 68 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. 10. On 23.04.2014, another show cause notice was issued by SEBI calling upon the noticees to show cause as to why the Company should not be declared as a Vanishing Company . Subsequently, by an order dated 21.10.2016, the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he allegations of misconduct/default, the respondent continues to reflect the petitioner as a defaulting Director of a Vanishing Company . 16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 07.02.2017 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Companies (ROC) indicating that the petitioner s name as a defaulting Director cannot be removed as the said list has been released by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (respondent no.1) 17. It is apparent from the averments made in the petition that the petitioner cannot be held as a defaulting director of a vanishing company. In this view, the petition is allowed and respondent no.1 is directed to remove the petitioner s name as a defa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
