Petitioners cannot avoid late fees for annual returns after restoration order already specified payment requirements

Delhi HC dismissed petitions seeking condonation of delay for filing e-forms regarding belated annual returns and balance sheets without additional fees. Despite existence of Union of India's scheme dated 15.01.2021 for delay condonation for companies restored between 01.12.2020-31.12.2020, the court's earlier order dated 11.02.2021 under Article 226 only directed restoration of petitioners' names subject to payment of requisite fees, including late fees. Petitioners cannot now seek relief not granted in the original order and must pay late fees for restoration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing e-forms for annual returns and balance sheets.
2. Disqualification of directors for non-filing of returns.
3. Revocation of disqualification and re-activation of DIN and DSC.
4. Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020.
5. Scheme for condonation of delay for restored companies.
6. Petitioners seeking waiver of additional fees.
7. Entitlement to benefit under the schemes based on court orders.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking direction to condone the delay in filing e-forms for belated annual returns and balance sheets without charging additional fees. The petitioners, a parent and subsidiary company, faced financial constraints leading to their names being struck off from the Registrar of Companies for non-filing of returns, resulting in director disqualification under the Companies Act. Subsequent writ petitions were filed for revoking disqualification and re-activating DIN and DSC.

2. The court had earlier directed re-activation of DIN and DSC but held the petitioners liable for late filing penalties. The Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020, and a scheme for condonation of delay for restored companies were introduced by the respondents. The petitioners sought restoration of their names based on court orders but failed to comply with the deadline for filing annual returns and balance sheets.

3. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to scheme benefits due to the court order permitting restoration of their names. However, the respondents contended that the schemes applied to companies with NCLT orders before the scheme expiration, not to the petitioners who obtained a court order after the scheme's expiry. The court analyzed the previous order and schemes, concluding that the petitioners must pay late fees for restoration.

4. Despite the existence of a scheme for condonation of delay, the court did not extend its benefits to the petitioners. The court's order only required payment of requisite fees for restoration, not granting waiver of additional fees. The petitioners did not seek clarification on scheme benefits in their extension applications, leading to dismissal of their writ petitions seeking fee waiver.

5. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions as the petitioners were required to pay late fees for restoration, emphasizing that they cannot seek relief not granted in the previous court order. The petitioners' failure to seek clarification on scheme benefits precluded them from seeking waiver of additional fees.

---