2019 (2) TMI 1880 - HC - Companies Law

Disqualification of Directors - validity of list published by the Registrar of the Companies naming the directors of the companies who have attracted disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - Even a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that no rights of the parties have been decided by the learned Single Judge and the matter has been directed to be heard finally upon exchange of affidavits. There is no plausible or justifiable reason as to why we should interfere in this matter. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversity are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts of the instant case, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned order. The appeal is thoroughly devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed along with the application for stay and stands accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 based on applicability from 1st April, 2014, and not prior periods.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Calcutta High Court stemmed from an order dated 30th August, 2018, in a writ petition challenging a list published by the Registrar of Companies naming directors disqualified under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner contended that the provision came into effect from 1st April, 2014, and should not apply to periods before that. The respondent's advocate referred to a similar matter in the Bombay High Court where the Supreme Court had stayed the order. The High Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks and allowed the parties to mention the matter for final hearing after the exchange of affidavits.

The High Court noted that the impugned order did not decide the rights of the parties but directed the matter to be heard finally after the exchange of affidavits. The Court found no palpable infirmities or perversity in the order to warrant interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. The Court emphasized that interference is not justified unless clear defects are evident, which was not the case here. The impugned order was deemed to be supported by cogent and justifiable reasons.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, along with the application for stay. The judgment highlighted the absence of any valid reasons for intervention and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the lack of substantive grounds for challenging the impugned order, which was found to be well-reasoned and legally sound.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment encapsulates the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the reasoning behind the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal challenging disqualification under the Companies Act, 2013.