9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is taking appropriate steps in respect of the marking of the respondent no. 4, that is, the Tirupathi Properties Investment Private Limited as having management dispute. Thus, the marking of the company as having management dispute was not the subject-matter of the writ petition but that of an appropriate challenge before a different forum. A perusal of the Master Circular dated February 10, 2012 makes it clear that Clause 3 thereof is independent of Clause 2, the latter merely contemplating the requirement of the company to mandatorily file the attachment relating to cause of cessation along with Form 32 of the ROC concerned, irrespective of the ground of cessation - Clause 3 of the Circular still remains in force and restr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such DIN is re-activated. Application allowed. - WPA No. 6697 of 2021 IA No: CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 5591 of 2020) with CAN 2 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2021 - HON BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA For the applicant in CAN 2 of 2021 : Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Sidhartha Sharma, Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee, Mr. Arjun Asthana, Ms. Shalini Basu For the respondent-authorities : Mr. Avinash Kankani For the writ petitioner : Mr. Joydip Kar, Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Mr. Goutam Shroff, Mr. Siddharth Shroff Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J:- In Re: CAN 2 of 2021 1. The present application has been filed for recall of an Order dated March 8, 2021 passed by this court in WPA No. 669 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors would not be approved/registered/recorded and not be available in the registry for public viewing was also set aside, ought to be recalled. 4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant that the said order dated June 24, 2016, which is appearing as Annexure P-7 at page 50 of the writ petition, has no nexus with the re-activation of DIN, since the management dispute pertaining to the Tirupathi Properties Investment Private Limited still persists and the company is marked as having a management dispute even as on date. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner controverts such submissions and submits that the Circular dated February 10, 2012 clarifies that wherever there is management disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Upon a consideration of the clauses of the said Circular dated February 10, 2012, it is seen that the first paragraph thereof clarifies that previous circulars were superseded thereby. 9. However, Clause 2 does not, in any manner, affect the independent operation of Clause 3 of the Circular dated February 10, 2012, which specifically empowers the ROC to withhold the approval/registration/recording of the documents filed by the company and by the contesting group of directors and from those being available in the registry for public viewing. 10. In the present case, the challenge in the writ petition was that the DIN of the writ petitioner could not be deactivated since the writ petitioner had complied with the requirements to be comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etting aside the operation of the portion of the order dated June 24, 2016 passed by the ROC in terms of Clause 3 of the Master Circular dated February 10, 2012. 13. In fact, since such marking of the company-in-question as having management dispute still continues, independent of the re-activation of the writ petitioner s DIN, the portion of the order under recall, whereby the order of the ROC dated June 24, 2016 was set aside, was beyond the scope of the writ petition and the dispute involved therein. Although the writ petitioner was not responsible for non-approval of the documents filed by the writ petitioner due to Clause 3 of the Circular dated February 10, 2012, thereby justifying the reactivation of the DIN, the order dated Jun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No: CAN 5591 of 2020) is recalled and modified to the following extent: 17. The deactivation of the DIN of Garima Rungta, the writ petitioner, is set aside and such DIN is re-activated. The Registrar of Companies (ROC) shall take necessary consequential steps and permit the writ petitioner to discharge her duties as a director of the company being the respondent no.4 in the writ petition, that is Tirupathi Properties and Investment Private Limited. 18. However, the part of the order dated June 24, 2016 passed by the Registrar of Companies, Kolkata withholding the approval/registration/recording of the documents filed by the company and the writ petitioner and non-availability of the said documents in the registry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
