Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 289 - HC - Companies LawDisqualification of Petitioner to hold the Office of the Directorship of a Company - Section 164 (2) (a) of the Companies Act 2013 - direction to the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to get re-appointed or appointed as Directors in any other Company without any hindrance - HELD THAT - The lists dated 08.09.2017 and 01.11.2017 published by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai were the subject matter of challenge before this Court in BHAGAVAN DAS DHANANJAYA DAS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, TAMILNADU CHENNAI 2018 (8) TMI 436 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and came to be disposed by this Court where it was held that Section 164(2)(a) is read down to the extent it disqualifies the directors in other companies which are scrupulously following the requirements of law, making it clear that no directors in other companies can be disqualified without prior notice. As the Petitioner in this case is similarly placed to the Petitioners in the aforesaid batch of cases relating to the same impugned lists published in the website by the Respondents, she is entitled to identical relief that has been granted to them. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 and the consequential direction for re-appointment or appointment as Directors in any other Company. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a Writ Petition challenging the disqualification of the Petitioner to hold the Office of the Directorship of a Company under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act 2013. The disqualification was based on lists published by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore. The Court noted that the disqualification was erroneously applied retrospectively before the deadline commenced, and the disqualification criteria should have been from 1.4.2014 onwards. The Court highlighted that the disqualification could only be triggered after 30.10.2017 if a company failed to file annual forms for three financial years. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in such disqualification cases, especially in issuing proper notice to all directors. It was also noted that the disqualification clause should not have retrospective effects under the new Act, especially when penal provisions for failure to file returns were already in place. The Court further discussed the disproportionate nature of Section 164(2)(a) in disqualifying directors not only in the defaulting company but also in other companies where the director held a position. The judgment highlighted that the disqualification should be read down to the extent that directors in other companies following legal requirements should not be disqualified without prior notice. The judgment clarified that the removal of company names by the Registrar of Companies and the disqualification of directors in defaulting companies were interconnected. The impugned orders disqualifying the Petitioner were set aside, and the Writ Petition was allowed, providing relief similar to that granted in previous related cases. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges to disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act 2013, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness, the limitations of retrospective application, and the need for proportionality in disqualification measures. The Court's decision set aside the disqualification order, allowing the Petitioner to seek re-appointment or appointment as Directors in other companies without hindrance.
|