9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this has not been done and that the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioners in striking off the name of the company from the register of companies cannot be sustained for this reason as well. It cannot be denied that the issues raised in this writ petition require adjudication and are of grave importance so far as the working of the spirit, intendment and object of the Companies Act, 2013, more specifically the manner in which the respondents would operate Sections 164 and 248 of the enactment. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a stay of the notices dated 6th September, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 whereby the petitioner was declared disqualified as Director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptember, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 issued under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the respondents disqualifying the petitioner as Directors in the Companies wheresoever they may be Directors. This disqualification has resulted for the reason that there was default in submitting returns which were statutorily required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies with regard to the affairs of the Company in question, for a continuous period of three financial years. 4. The writ petition inter alia seeks quashing of the said notices dated 6th September, 2017 and 12th September, 2017. 5. The matter however does not rest here. Apart from the disqualification under Section 164(2)(a), the writ petitioner has stated that in purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been contended by the petitioners that such notice had to be issued and served in the manner prescribed by law i.e. in compliance with Rule 3(2) of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Registrar of Companies) Rules, 2016. The petitioners contend that this has not been done and that the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioners in striking off the name of the company from the register of companies cannot be sustained for this reason as well. 9. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Gaurang Kanth, ld. CGSC disputes all these submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted, upon instructions from the Registrar of Companies, that notices under Section 248(1) have been sent to the Companies and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
