Back
G. S. KULKARNI, FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA
Rajiv Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Companies – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. S. KULKARNI, J.
RULE, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the Petitioner, praying for a relief against Respondent No.1 – Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, for a direction to remove the name of the Petitioner as a Director of Respondent No.4-company – “Local Search Solution Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai”.
3. There are two substantive prayers made in the Petition, being prayer clauses (a) & (b) which read thus:-
(b) this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to initiate appropriate action/steps against Respondent No.4 for default in complying with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding resignation of the Director.”
4. The case of the Petitioner is that on 14 August 2020 the Petitioner had gi
The resignation of a director takes effect as per Section 168(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, and non-compliances should not prevent the removal of the director's name.
Striking off a company's name while oppression proceedings are pending contravenes legal principles and judicial authority.
Directors' liability under the ESI Act is limited to their period of directorship, and they cannot be held liable for actions of the company after they have ceased to be directors.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
