Rahul Sahgal vs Union Of India And Anr

CM No. 8389/2018 (Exemption)

1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 2027/2018 & CM No. 8388/2018 (Stay)

2.Issue notice.

3.Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

4.Counsel for the petitioner says that issue raised in the present writ petition is similar to the issue which arose before the Division Bench in Prem

Prakash Sethi and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

5.Copy of order dated 10.01.2018, passed in Prem Prakash Sethi and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. has been placed before me. To be noted, the

said order was passed in WP(C) No. 126/2018.

6.In view of the situation obtaining, the counsels submit that the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.

7.Briefly, the facts obtaining in this case are as follows:-

 (i)The petitioner's name was included in the list of disqualified directors for the financial years 2012-2014 as the company qua which he was

appointed as a director, i.e. Annik Systems Private Ltd.( in short “ASPâ€​) had its name struck off from the Register of Companies.

 (ii)According to the petitioner though ASP had filed its Income Tax returns and Service Tax returns for financial year 2015-2016, though it failed to

file its filing its financial statements and annual returns for the financial years 2012-2014.

 (iii) It appears that because of this reason, ASP's name was struck off from the Register of Companies. Counsel for the petitioner says that the

petitioner wishes to revive ASP and for that purpose, has lodged an appeal vide diary no. 1651/2018 on 22.02.2018 with the NCLT under Section

252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (herein after “the Actâ€​).

 (iv) Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner wishes to avail the benefit of the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018 (herein

after „the Schemeâ€​) framed by the respondents. It is in this context that the learned counsel has referred to in Prem Prakash Sethi

(supra)

8.Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the direction that the directives contained in Prem Prakash Sethi (supra) will apply mutatis mutandis to

the petitioner herein as well.

9.The petitioner will prosecute his appeal with NCLT. The NCLT will endeavour to dispose of the appeal at the earliest given the fact that the

Scheme expires on 31.03.2018.

9.1In case, it is not possible for NCLT to dispose of the appeal before the said date for the reasons under the Act. The respondent will, as indicated in

Prem Prakash Sethi (supra), extend the tenure of the Scheme.

9.2Furthermore, in such time, if NCLT disposes of the appeal and a request of the petitioner, if any, made under the Scheme is deliberated upon, the

operation of the impuged list (Annexure P1) in so far as it includes the name of petitioner shall remain stayed.

10.It is, however, made clear that the petitioner will have the appeal listed, at the earliest, before the NCLT and make an application under the

Scheme expeditiously. The needful will be done by the petitioner within 10 days from today.

11.No other directions are called for.

12.Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

13.The pending applications stand closed.