2023 (5) TMI 818 - HC - Companies Law

Petitioner s DIN number was incorrectly used - grievance of the Petitioner is that owing to the identity in names, the Petitioner has been wrongly reflected as a Director in Respondent No. 2 company- Katariya Multi Trade Private Limited - HELD THAT - At the time of the incorporation of Respondent No. 2, the name of Sunil Rawat along with Indore, Madhya Pradesh address was mentioned. However, the DIN number of the Petitioner, who is a resident of Delhi, has been wrongly mentioned. It is this error that needs to be corrected in the records - In the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is no dispute that the DIN number has been wrongly mentioned due to an error of the Company Secretary concerned, the Petitioner cannot be visited with consequences unknown to him and for which he is not to blame. It is accordingly directed that Respondent No. 2 company Kataria Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. shall be deemed to have been incorporated with the details of Directors given at page 43 of the petition as the correct details of the directors with the DIN numbers. The Petitioner, whose DIN number has been incorrectly used, shall be saddled with no liability in respect of Respondent No. 2 company or its subsidiaries including any of their businesses or activities - If any rectification has to be carried out on the MCA website or ROC, Ahmedabad records, the same shall be done within 4 weeks from the date of filing of an application to this effect. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The issue involves the incorrect use of the Petitioner's DIN number for the incorporation of Respondent No. 2 company, leading to the Petitioner being wrongly reflected as a Director in the company.

Judgment Details:
The Petitioner, Mr. Sunil Rawat, approached the Court under peculiar circumstances where his name was wrongly reflected as a Director in Respondent No. 2 company due to the incorrect submission of his DIN number during the incorporation process. Despite efforts to disassociate himself, the Petitioner remained associated with the company against his will.

The Petitioner sought a writ to cancel the Certificate of incorporation or strike off the company from records due to the misuse of his DIN number. Respondent No. 2 provided an indemnity to the Petitioner, stating that the use of his DIN number was inadvertent and by a bona fide mistake.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs clarified that the appropriate jurisdiction for the case would be the High Court of Gujarat as the company was incorporated there. The master data of Respondent No. 2 showed the correct directors and their DIN numbers, highlighting the initial error in the submission.

The Court directed that the company shall be deemed to have been incorporated with the correct details of directors as per the petition, absolving the Petitioner of any liability. The necessary rectifications on the MCA website or ROC records were to be completed within four weeks of the application filing.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with the mentioned directives, ensuring the correction of records and relieving the Petitioner from any association or liability towards Respondent No. 2 company.