9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to 01.04.2014, the same cannot be sustained, and are liable to be set aside to that extent. Issuance of prior notice before disqualifying the petitioners as directors - HELD THAT:- Section 164(2)(a) makes it clear that it provides disqualification on happening of an event i.e., if a person who is or has been a director of a company has not filed financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years, shall be ineligible to be re-appointed as a director of that company or appointed in any other company for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do so. The provision does not provide for issuance of any prior notice or hearing. Thus, it is clear that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is a deeming provision and the disqualification envisaged under the said provision comes into force automatically by operation of law on default and Legislature did not provide for issuance of any prior notice, but the respondents notified disqualification even before it incurred, and deactivated DINs, which is illegal arbitrary and against provisions contained in Section 164(2)(a) of the Act. Deactivation of DINs - contention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The petitioners are the directors of the private companies, registered under the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) (for short the Act ). Some of the such companies are active, and some of them have been struck off from the register of companies under Section 248(1)( c ) of the Act, for not carrying on any business operation for the specified period mentioned in the said provision, and for not making any application within the specified period, for obtaining the status of a dormant company under Section 455 of the Act. 3. The petitioners, who were directors of the struck off companies, and who are presently directors of active companies, during the relevant period in question, failed to file financial statements or annual returns for a continuous period of three years. Therefore, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order under Section 164(2) of the Act, disqualifying them as directors, and further making them ineligible to be re-appointed as directors of that company, or any other company, for a period of five years from the date on which the respective companies failed to do so. The Director Identification Numbers (DINs) of the petitioners were also deactivated. Agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned counsel further submits that as against the deactivation, no appeal is provided under the Rules, and appeal to the Tribunal under Section 252 of the Act is provided only against the dissolution of the company under Section 248 of the Act. 9. Learned counsel further submits that 1st respondent Government of India represented by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, has floated a scheme dated 29.12.2017 viz., Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018, wherein the directors, whose DINs have been deactivated by the 2nd respondent, allows the DINs of the Directors to be activated. However, such scheme is not applicable to the companies which are struck off under Section 248(5) of the Act. In case of active companies, they can make application to National Company Law Tribunal under Section 252 of the Act, seeking for restoration, and the Tribunal can order for reactivation of DIN of such directors, whose DIN are deactivated. However, under Section 252 only the companies, which are carrying on the business, can approach the Tribunal and the companies, which have no business, cannot approach the Tribunal for restoration. They submit that since the penal provision is given retrospec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 248, file an application before the Tribunal seeking restoration of name of such company. (2) A copy of the order passed by the Tribunal shall be filed by the company with the Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order and on receipt of the order, the Registrar shall cause the name of the company to be restored in the register of companies and shall issue a fresh certificate of incorporation. (3) If a company, or any member or creditor or worker thereof feels aggrieved by the company having its name struck off from the register of companies, the Tribunal or an application made by the company, member, creditor or workman before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice under sub-section (5) of Section 248, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of its name being struck off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored to the register of companies, order the name of the company to be restored to the register of companies, and the Tribunal may, by the order, give such other directions and make such provisions as deemed just for placing the company and all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereto), Auditors reports and the Board of Directors report (Board s report) have been brought into force with effect from 1st April, 2014. Provisions of Schedule II (useful lives to compute depreciation) and Schedule III (format of financial statements) have also been brought into force from that date. The relevant Rules pertaining to these provisions have also been notified, placed on the website of the Ministry and have come into force from the same date. The Ministry has received requests for clarification with regard to the relevant financial years with effect from which such provisions of the new Act relating to maintenance of books of account, preparation, adoption and filing of financial statements (and attachments thereto), auditors report and Board s report will be applicable. Although the position in this behalf is quite clear, to make things absolutely clear it is hereby notified that the financial statements (and documents required to be attached thereto), auditors report and Board s report in respect of financial years that commenced earlier than 1st April shall be governed by the relevant provisions/schedules/rules of the Companies Act, 1956 and that in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectors of the private company, will not disqualify them as directors under the provisions of Act 1 of 1956. 15. Under Section 164(2) of the new legislation i.e., Act 18 of 2013, no such distinction between a private company or a public company is made and as per the said provision goes to show that no person who is or has been a director of a company , fails to file financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years, will not be eligible for appointment as a director of a company. As already noted above, the said provision, came into force with effect from 01.04.2014. 16. Coming to the facts on hand, the 2nd respondent has disqualified the petitioners under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act 18 of 2013, for not filing financial statements or annual returns, for period prior to 01.04.2014. The action of the 2nd respondent runs contrary to the circular issued by the Ministry of the Corporate Affairs, and he has given the provisions of Act 18 of 2013, retrospective effect, which is impermissible. 17. The Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, NEW DELHI v. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED ( (2015)1 SCC1 ) has dealt wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ac 486]. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note that cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later. 30. We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is mentioned that amendments in Section 145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with the amendments in Section 158-BE, would be prospective i.e., will take effect from 1.6.2002. 18. Thus, the Apex Court in the above judgment, has made it clear that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation has to be presumed to have prospective effect. A reading of Section 164 of the Act does not show that the legislation has any intention, to make the said provision applicable to past transactions. Further, the Apex Court in the above judgment at paragraph No.43, found that the circular issued by the authority after passing of the legislation, clarifying the position with regard to applicability of the provisions, has to be construed as an important piece of evidence, as it would clarify the provision beyond any pale of doubt. In the present case, as already noted above, the Ministry of Corporation affairs has issued the circular No.08/2014 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence . In view of the same, the ground on which the petitioners were disqualified, cannot stand to legal scrutiny, and the same is liable to be set aside. 20. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in YASHODHARA SHROFF vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.No.52911 of 2017 and batch dated 12.06.2019 considering Section 164(2)(a) of the Act and other provisions of the Act, and various judgments, passed an elaborate order and held that the said provision has no retrospective operation. The observations of the learned Judge, pertaining to private companies, which are relevant for the present purpose, are extracted as under: 208. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have arrived at the following conclusions: (a) It is held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is not ultra virus Article 14 of the Constitution. The said provision is not manifestly arbitrary and also does not fall within the scope of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequences of the said disqualification would apply to them under the Act. . . . . 21. A learned Single of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in GAURANG BALVANTLAL SHAH S/O BALVANTLAL SHAH vs. UNION OF INDIA r/Special Civil Application No.22435 of 2017 and batch dated 18.12.2018 expressed similar view as that of the leaned single Judge of High Court of Karnataka (1 supra), and held that Section 164(2) of the Act of 2013, which had come into force with effect from 1.4.2014 would have prospective, and not retrospective effect and that the defaults contemplated under Section 164(2)(a) with regard to non-filing of financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years would be the default to be counted from the financial year 2014-15 only and not 2013-14. 22. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras in BHAGAVAN DAS DHANANJAYA DAS vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.No.25455 of 2017 and batch dated 27.07.2018 also expressed similar view. The relevant portion is as under: 29. In fine, (a) When the New Act 2013 came into effect from 1.4.2014, the second respondent herein has wrongly given retrospective effect and erroneously di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the said company fails to do so. The provision does not provide for issuance of any prior notice or hearing. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Yashodara Shroff v. Union of India (1 supra), as well as the learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah s/o Balvantlal Shah vs. Union of India (2 supra), after analyzing various provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, and by relying on various judgments of the Apex Court, held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act applies by operation of law on the basis of the circumstances stated therein, the said provision does not envisage any hearing, neither pre-disqualification nor post-disqualification and this is not in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. I concur with the said reasoning. 25. Thus, from the above, it is clear that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is a deeming provision and the disqualification envisaged under the said provision comes into force automatically by operation of law on default and Legislature did not provide for issuance of any prior notice, but the respondents not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... means if the DIN is obtained on the strength of documents which are not legally valid or incomplete documents are furnished or on suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong certification or by making misleading or false information or by misrepresentation; (ii) the term fraudulent means means if the DIN is obtained with an intent to deceive any other person or any authority including the Central Government. 28. Clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11, extracted above, provides for the circumstances under which the DIN can be cancelled or deactivated. The said grounds, are different from the ground envisaged under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act. Therefore, for the alleged violation under Section 164 of the Act, DINs cannot be cancelled or deactivated, except in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules. 29. Learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in the decision cited 2 supra, held as under: 29. This takes the Court to the next question as to whether the respondents could have deactivated the DINs of the petitioner as a consequence of the impugned list? In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions contained in the Act and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under which the DIN could be cancelled or deactivated. 31. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents in deactivating the DINs of the petitioners Directors along with the publication of the impugned list of Directors of struck off companies under Section 248, also was not legally tenable. Of course, as per Rule 12 of the said Rules, the individual who has been allotted the DIN, in the event of any change in his particulars stated in Form DIR -3 has to intimate such change to the Central Government within the prescribed time in Form DIR-6, however, if that is not done, the DIN could not be cancelled or deactivated. The cancellation or deactivation of the DIN could be resorted to by the concerned respondents only as per the provisions contained in the said Rules. 30. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the judgment referred to supra, the deactivation of the DINs of the petitioners for alleged violations under Section 164 of the Act, cannot be sustained. 31. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders in the writ petitions to the extent of disqualifying the petitioners under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
