$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24th August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010270002026 + CONT.CAS(C) 1083/2026 & CM APPL. 55427/2026 PAWAN KUMAR JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv. Mob: 99990044608 Email: spl@rishabhjain.com versus MS. SEEMA RATH, REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES - 1, DELHI (SOUTH) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Mr. Chetanya Puri, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi and Mr. Kushagra Malik, Advs. Mob: 9990980316 Email: tiwariamit22@yahoo.com Ms. Meghana N., Assistant Registrar of Company, Delhi-01 (Through VC) Mob: 9949185903 Email: meghana.nandiraju@mca.gov.in CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL): 1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 29th April, 2026, passed in W.P.(C) Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:24.08.2026 21:30:04 Signature Not Verified 11302/2023. 2. By way of the said judgment, this Court has held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:24.08.2026 21:30:04 Signature Not Verified ” Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:24.08.2026 21:30:04 Signature Not Verified 3. Accordingly, by way of the aforesaid judgment, it was observed that the action of the Registrar of Companies (“ROC”) in striking of the name of the petitioner-company from its website, was void ab initio on account of the fact that the notification issued by the respondent bore a different Company Identification Number (“CIN”) than that of the petitioner-company. 4. Thus, it was been held that striking of the names of the petitioner- company from the website of the ROC was not proper. 5. Since, the name of the petitioner-company has still not been restored by the Registrar of Companies, the present petition has come to be filed. 6. This Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the appeal filed by the respondnet before the Division Bench of this Court has been withdrawn today, i.e., 24th August, 2026, with liberty to file a Review Petition against the aforesaid judgment dated 29th April, 2026. 7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the Circular dated 24th February, 2026, issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India (“MCA”) and submits that there are certain compliances, which need to be done by the petitioner- company, in terms of the aforesaid circular. 8. In addition, he submits that such compliances can only be done by the petitioner-company, if the name of the petitioner-company is shown as an active company on the website of the MCA. 9. He further submits that such compliances have to be done latest by 31st August, 2026. 10. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment dated 29th April, 2026, the name of the petitioner-company Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:24.08.2026 21:30:04 Signature Not Verified ought to be restored in the ROC and be shown as an active company on the website of the MCA. 11. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that since Review Petition is being filed against the judgement dated 29th April, 2026, therefore the said action cannot be done. 12. On direction of this Court, Ms. Meghana N., Assistant Registrar of Companies, Delhi-01, is present before this Court through Video Conferencing (“VC”). She submits that various approvals would have to be taken at different levels, before the requisite compliance can be done. 13. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that once there is a subsisting judgment by the Court of law, the concerned Ministry and other parties involved, are required to comply with the same. The mere fact that the respondent seeks to file a review petition is no ground for non-compliance of a Court order. 14. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to forthwith restore the petitioner-company’s name in the ROC and show the status of the petitioner- company as an active company on the website of the MCA. 15. In order to safeguard the interest of the respondent, it is directed that such action shall be done, subject to any order that may be passed in the review application, which may be filed on behalf of the respondent, if so deemed appropriate and if so advised. 16. Accordingly, let the needful be done forthwith. 17. This Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that in case of any glitch at the time of uploading of documents and for updating of Master Data, he may be allowed to coordinate with the concerned officials of the ROC. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:24.08.2026 21:30:04 Signature Not Verified 18. Accordingly, Ms. Meghana N., Assistant ROC, Delhi-01, whose details are reflected in today’s order, is requested to cooperate with the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard. 19. Accordingly, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. 20. The present petition along with the pending application is accordingly, disposed of. 21. The next date of hearing, i.e., 21st December, 2026, also stands cancelled. MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 24, 2026/SK By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:24.08.2026 21:30:04