Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 204 (DEL)

Union Of India v. Paresh Nath Sharma

2023-01-17

MANMOHAN, SAURABH BANERJEE

body2023
JUDGMENT : MANMOHAN, J. 1. Present appeals have been filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Court has ordered that removal of companies from the Register of Companies under Section 248 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013 would be deemed to be voluntary dissolution under Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and that the respondents-companies would be entitled to a sympathetic consideration by the Registrar of Companies under the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants-Union of India state that the appellant-Union of India is not in a position to comply with the impugned directions of the learned Single Judge as the companies in question have been struck-off under Section 248(1) Companies Act, 2013 and necessary gazette notifications thereof have been issued. They state that the computer software does not permit the stuck-off companies to be transposed as voluntarily struck-off companies. According to them, the remedy for such struck-off companies is by filing revival applications before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. They further submit that the struck-off companies would be eligible to apply for the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018, only if they had been revived by the NCLT. Consequently, the learned counsel for the appellants submit that learned Single Judge had erroneously directed that the companies which had already been struck-off can avail the benefit of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents-original writ petitioners and the learned Amicus Curiae state that the respondents-original writ petitioners had primarily challenged their disqualification as directors and for unfreezing their Director Identification Numbers (DIN) and Digital Signature Certificates. They state that in none of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners had sought the relief of voluntary dissolution of the companies and / or applicability of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018. 4. They state that in none of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners had sought the relief of voluntary dissolution of the companies and / or applicability of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018. 4. Learned counsel for the Union of India, on instructions of Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, who is personally present in Court, state that as the period of disqualification of the Respondents-original writ petitioners has now expired by efflux of time, they have no objection if the present appeals are disposed of in accordance with the order dated 11th November, 2022 passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in which lead writ petition was W.P.(C) 62/2019. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-original writ petitioners state that they would be satisfied if the relief granted vide order dated 11th November, 2022 is granted to them. 6. Since the present respondents-original writ petitioners are similarly placed to the writ petitioners in a batch of writ petitions (in which lead writ petition was W.P.(C) No.62/2019) which have already been disposed of by this Court, the present appeals are disposed of holding that as the period of disqualification of respondents-original writ petitioners/directors has expired by efflux of time i.e. on account of lapse of five years, the respondents-original writ petitioners are eligible for appointment/re-appointment as directors. However, it is clarified that the writ petitioners, who carried on as directors due to subsistence of interim orders passed by this Court, shall not be visited with any civil or penal consequences. 7. It is further clarified that none of the writ petitioners will be eligible for appointment/re-appointment as directors if they have incurred any other disqualification or were disqualified for any subsequent period on account of non-filing of returns. 8. It is also clarified that the companies which had already been struck off under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be revived by virtue of the impugned order. However, the respondents-original writ petitioners shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for seeking revival of the companies in question. 9. The questions of law and fact raised by the appellants-Union of India are left open. 10. The Demand Drafts (DD), if any, deposited by the petitioners in accordance with the interim orders passed by this Court shall be returned/refunded to the said petitioners. 9. The questions of law and fact raised by the appellants-Union of India are left open. 10. The Demand Drafts (DD), if any, deposited by the petitioners in accordance with the interim orders passed by this Court shall be returned/refunded to the said petitioners. List the present batch of writ petitions before the Joint Registrar for the limited purpose of return/refund of DD, if any, on 30th January, 2023. With the aforesaid directions, the present batch of writ petitions along with pending applications stand disposed of.