IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Thangavel Pravinkumar - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Represented by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 4979 of 2021 & W.M.P. Nos. 5557 & 5567 of 2021
Decided On : 04-03-2021
Companies Act, 2013 - Director Disqualification - Interpretation of Section 164(2)(a)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the disqualification as Director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, due to non-submission of financial statements for three consecutive financial years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner as Director was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity, which was in violation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The court applied the ratio laid down by a previous Division Bench judgment and set aside the impugned order, allowing the writ petition.
Issues: Violation of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and lack of opportunity given to the petitioner before disqualification as Director.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the interpretation of Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 as established in a previous judgment, emphasizing the requirement to afford an opportunity before disqualifying a Director.
Final Decision: The impugned order disqualifying the petitioner as Director was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the impugned order dated 01.11.2017 uploaded in the website of the 1st respondent in so far as the petitioner (DIN:01813871) herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to get reappointed as Director of said company or appointed as Director in any company without any hindrance.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the disqualification of the petitioner as Director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 on the ground that he has not submitted financial statements for three consecutive financial years. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 01.11.2017 passed by the second respondent on the ground that without affording opportunity to the petitioner, the said order has been passed.
2. Mr. K. Ramanamoorthy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.
3. Heard Mr. Rajeswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramanamoorthy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 01.11.2017 has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and therefore, the said order is bad in law.
5. The issue raised in this writ petition was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 09.10.2020 in W.A. No.569 & Ors. of 2020 in the case of Meetgelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan Versus Union of India & Another and in paragraphs 36 and 38, it has been held as follows :
38. In the result, these appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2020. Consequently, the publication of the list of disqualified directors by the ROC and the deactivation of the DIN of the Appellants is hereby quashed. As a corollary to our conclusion on the deactivation of DIN, the DIN of the respective dire
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.