Back
ANAND PATHAK
Abbas Maru – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER
1. Regard being had to the similitude of controversy, all the writ petitions referred above were heard analogously and decided by this common order. For convenience's sake, facts of writ petition No.15683/2020 are taken into consideration.
2. The instant petition (W.P.No.15683/2020) under Article 226 of Constitution of India is preferred preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs :
a) That, the impugned order Annexure P-1 under section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in relation to the petitioner may kindly be directed to be quashed and the name of the petitioner as a Disqualified Director from the list of Disqualified Director by ROC -Gwalior may kindly be deleted forthwith.
B) That, the DIN No.05171973 & 05266971 of the petitioners respectively be directed to be restored/reactivated in respect for E-filing of other surviving company.
C) Any such relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the present facts and circumstance of the case.
3. Grievances as echoed in the writ petition along with other similar writ petitions are that they are aggrieved by the
The disqualification of directors under Section 164 (2) and 167 (l)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 is automatic and does not require prior notice or hearing. The deactivation of Director Identificatio....
The disqualification of directors under Section 164 (2) and 167 (1)(a) is automatic and does not require prior notice or hearing. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the relevant sections....
The operation of the 2014 Amendment to Section 164(2) and the 2018 Amendment to the proviso of Section 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 are prospective in nature.
: AQD Rules do not empower the ROC to deactivate the DIN, Court find that such deactivation would also be contrary to Section 164(2) read with 167(1) of CA 2013 inasmuch as the person concerned would....
The court reinforced that disqualifications based on inappropriate application of statutory provisions cannot be upheld, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness.
: AQD Rules do not empower the ROC to deactivate the DIN - Deactivation would also be contrary to Section 164(2) read with 167(1) of CA 2013 inasmuch as the person concerned would continue to be a di....
The requirement to afford an opportunity before disqualifying a Director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013.
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
