9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited with effect from 26.05.2016. However, he had not filed the necessary form with the Registrar of Companies at the material time. Insofar as the petitioner s prayer that his Director Identification Number (DIN) be directed to be activated is concerned, the said issue is also covered by the decision of this Court in Mukut Pathak Ors. [ 2019 (11) TMI 319 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] . It is not disputed that the petitioner s DIN had been deactivated only on account of his being disqualified to act as a Director. As held in Mukut Pathak s case, the said action is not sustainable. The DIN could be deactivated in terms of Rule 11 of the Companies Act (Appointment and Qualification of Director) Rules, 2014. But admittedly, the petitioner s DIN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... states that he is not a shareholder of the said company. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner earnestly contends that the petitioner is not liable for any of the acts of Kerela Housing Finance Limited. She relies upon the decision dated 27.11.2019 rendered by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.05/2018 in support of her contention. 4. Ms Raju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the petitioner was not only a Director in the Kerala Housing Finance Limited but was also Director in another company, namely, Shrek and Lee Debt Company Private Limited. She states that the name of the said company was also been struck off from the Register of Companies as Shrek and Lee Debt Company Priva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y had taken the decision to issue debentures at a meeting of the Board of Directors held prior to the petitioner s appointment as a director of the said company. SAT accepted the said contention and set aside the order passed by SEBI. 7. It is apparent from the above that the issues involved before the SAT are not the reasons why the petitioner has been disqualified to act as a director. Thus, the said decision has little relevance to the issues involved in the present petition. 8. The limited questions that fall for consideration of this Court are (i) whether the decisions of respondent in disqualifying the petitioner is illegal; and (ii) whether the decision of the respondents to deactivate his Director s Identification Number (DIN) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
