High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 09 RAJ CK 0075

Vikram Singh vs Union Of India

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 10 September 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 9803, 9804, 9807, 9840, 9996, 10110, 10021 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 660 words

Registry is directed to connect these cases. The present writ petitions challenge the action of the respondents disqualifying the petitioners as Directors and further, the petitioners' grievance is in respect to deactivate the Director Identification Number (for short "DIN"). The petitioners further prayed that they may be allowed to use their DIN and Digital Signature Certificate for filing of the documents in the office of the respondent No.2-Registrar of Companies, Jaipur.

Learned ASG - Mr.RD Rastogi, ASG, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, submits that the Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.9599/2019 (Smt.Richa Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.) along with other connected writ petitions has passed an order on 22 nd August, 2020, whereby it has been directed that the writ petitions, which are pending before learned Single Judge, will also be listed before the Division Bench.

Learned ASG - Mr.RD Rastogi submitted that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench on 22 nd August, 2020 in the case of Smt.Richa Sharma (supra), Registry was required to list these matters before the Division Bench.

Learned counsel submitted that the Registry has erroneously been interpreting the order of the Division Bench and has been taking a view that only pending matters are to be listed before the Division Bench and those fresh petitions, which are filed challenging these actions, are listed before the Single Bench.

Learned counsel submitted that once the Division Bench is seized with the matter, these matters need to be listed before the Division Bench.

Learned counsel Mr.Naresh Kumra Sejvani, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that though the petitioners have not challenged the virus of any provision of law, however, his only prayer is in respect of declaring the petitioners as Disqualified Directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short "the Act of 2013").

Learned counsel further submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to hear these matters and as such, appropriate view may be taken by this Court.

This Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court, while passing the order dated 22nd August, 2020, has specifically directed that the writ petitions, which are pending before learned Single Judge, need to be listed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench had also directed that the counsel, appearing for the parties, were required to submit the list of such cases, which are pending before the Single Bench and all matters were to be listed before the Division Bench.

This Court, following the order of the Division Bench dated 22nd August, 2020, deems it proper to list all these cases before the Division Bench.

Learned counsel for the petitioners will supply copy of the writ petitions to learned counsel, appearing for the respondents and additional copy of the petitions will also be filed enabling Registry to list these matters before the Division Bench.

This Court also makes it clear and directs the Registrar (Judicial) to list all the matters before the Division Bench, which relate to disqualification of the Directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act of 2013.

Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that this Court has already passed interim orders in certain other writ petitions and then sent the matters to the Division Bench and as such, he submitted that this Court may pass interim order in these cases also before sending them before the Division Bench.

This Court finds that now the matter is sub-judice before the Division Bench and the petitioners are always at liberty to make request to the Division Bench to pass interim order. It would not be appropriate for this Court now to pass interim order, once the matters are required to be listed before the Division Bench.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is urgency in the matter, as interim order has been passed in the similar cases.

Accordingly, Registry is directed to list these cases before the Division Bench on 16th September, 2020.