9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meetgelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan Versus Union of India Another [ 2020 (10) TMI 595 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ], it has been held that apart from the fact that the AQD Rules do not empower the ROC to deactivate the DIN, we find that such deactivation would also be contrary to Section 164(2) read with 167(1) of CA 2013 inasmuch as the person concerned would continue to be a director of the Defaulting Company. The case on hand stands on the same footing. In the instant case, also, no notice was given to the petitioner before disqualifying him as Director of M/s. Pearl Auto Service Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Le Grand Impex Pvt. Ltd. The impugned order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the second respondent disqualif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Versus Union of India & Another and in paragraphs 36 and 38, it has been held as follows : 36. As is evident from the above, Rules 9 and 10 deals with the application for allotment of DIN. Rule 10 (6) specifies that the DIN is valid for the life time of the applicant and shall not be allotted to any other person. Rule 11 provides for the cancellation or surrender or deactivation of the DIN. It is very clear upon examining Rule 11 that neither cancellation nor deactivation is provided for upon disqualification under Section 164(2) of CA 2013. In this connection, it is also pertinent to refer to Section 167(1) of CA 2013 which provides for vacating the office of director by a director of a Defaulting Company. As a corollary, it follows t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reactivated within 30 days of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Nonetheless, we make it clear that it is open to the ROC concerned to initiate action with regard to disqualification subject to an enquiry to decide the question of attribution of default to specific directors by taking into account the observations and conclusions herein. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 6. The case on hand stands on the same footing. In the instant case, also, no notice was given to the petitioner before disqualifying him as Director of M/s. Pearl Auto Service Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Le Grand Impex Pvt. Ltd. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
