Case Law Details

Case Name : Raman Nanda Vs. Union Of India And Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) 11307/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 21.12.2017
Related Assessment Year :

Raman Nanda Vs. Union Of India And Ors. (Delhi High Court)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a “lists of disqualified directors” published by respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the extent that it includes the name of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner claims that he is the Director of a private company named Vanya Sm Power Company Private Limited (hereafter ‘the Company’). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner unequivocally states that the Company has not carried out any business for the past three years and its bank account is also not in operation for the past three years. The petitioner also did not file the requisite returns as required under the Companies Act, 2013 (hereafter ‘the Act’). Consequently, the petitioner has incurred the disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes an unequivocal statement, on instruction of the petitioner, that the petitioner is desirous of availing of the Condonation of Delay Scheme -2018 (hereafter `CODS – 2018′). However, since the Company has been struck off from the Register of Companies, it has been disabled from availing the benefits of CODS- 2018.

4. The petitioner is also not in a position to seek revival of the company by filing an appeal under Section 252 of the Act, since admittedly the Company has not carried out any business and was liable to be struck off from the Register. The petitioner states that, in fact, it would voluntarily seek dissolution of the Company under Section 248(2) of the Act, if it has the opportunity to do so.

5. This Court is of the view that since, admittedly, the Company is not carrying out any businesss and its bank account has not been operated for over three years, the petitioner ought to be provided the benefit of the CODS – 2018. Accordingly, this Court directs as under:-

(a) The petitioner may file all the requisite returns in relation to the Company to avail the CODS – 2018.

(b) The petitioner may also file the necessary resolutions for voluntarily striking off the name of the Company as required under Section 248(2) of the Act.

(c) The petitioner would also make a necessary application under CODS – 2018 alongwith the requisite charges.

(d) The aforesaid documents and applications will not be submitted online but in hard copies to the Registrar of Companies.

6. The Registrar shall scrutinize the same, and if the same are found to be otherwise in accordance with Section 248(2) of the Act, the petitioner would be granted the benefit of the CODS – 2018. The removal of the Company from the Register under Section 248(1) of the Act would be deemed as striking off the Company under Section 248(2) of the Act, and the petitioner’s application under CODS – 2018 would be sympathetically considered by the Registrar.

7. Since an unequivocal statement is made by the petitioner that he would pay the necessary charges and make the necessary application under the CODS – 2018, the impugned list of the disqualified directors, in as much as it includes the name of the directors, is stayed till 31.03.2018 or up till such time as the respondents take a final decision in the matter.

8. This order has been passed with due assistance of the learned ASG, in the peculiar f acts and circumstances of these cases.

9. It is clarified that if the petitioner does not avail of the CODS-2018 or file the necessary documents as required for dissolution of the company under Section 248(2) of the Act as stated above; in addition to other consequences, the petitioner would also be liable to be prosecuted for contempt of Court.

10. It is further clarified that the aforesaid order is made on the basis of the unequivocal statements made on behalf of the petitioner above and in the event the statements are found to be incorrect, the petitioner would be liable to be proceeded against contempt of court in addition to being subjected to other proceedings.

11. The petition and the pending applications are disposed of.


More Under Company Law


  1. vivek says:

    our directors are disqualified ,as we have not filled the ROC reruns from the inception of company,and fail to avail the benefit of CODS-18 scheme.we are not interested to revive the company but want to activate the DIN of Director,for this where we can make appeal or presentation. NCLT rejected our application for restoration of company and DIN Activation.

  2. GOVINDA PATIL says:

    But it looks like Company has to get order from jurisdictional High court for stay of disqualification and directions to the jurisdictional ROC.

    Further it is not clear how High Court could pass an order on 21.12.2017 when CODS 2018 was not yet notified by MCA.

  3. S K Mishra says:

    Sir/ Madam

    We have a similar case & do not want to revive stucked company but make operational DIN of directors since other companies operation is stopped.

    Does we require to go to NCLT or on the basis of this decision directly approach to ROC to take advantage of COND2018 scheme.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2021