SHUMITA KAKKAR vs REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES HARYANA AND ANR — CWP/11824/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 21-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010651652026

e-Filing Number

17-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/23243/2026

Filing Date

18-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11824/2026

Registration Date

18-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Category

63.15 - MISC. UOI ( 741 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHUMITA KAKKAR

    Adv. SATYAM TANDON

  2. 2.Registrar of Companies Haryana and Anr

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES HARYANA AND ANR

  2. 2.Registrar of Companies Haryana and Anr

  3. 3.Office of Regional Director

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Shumita Kakkar's petition seeking directions to the Registrar of Companies to inquire into her representation and prohibit action on her removal as Director. The court found no basis for intervention since the company had not yet filed Form DIR-12 (director removal form), and held that when filed, the ROC would be obligated to comply with Rule 11 of the 2014 Rules by verifying required documents, making judicial direction unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11824/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Shumita Kakkar's petition seeking directions to the Registrar of Companies to inquire into her representation and prohibit action on her removal as Director. The court found no basis for intervention since the company had not yet filed Form DIR-12 (director removal form), and held that when filed, the ROC would be obligated to comply with Rule 11 of the 2014 Rules by verifying required documents, making judicial direction unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case