Allowed

Preeti Pandey and 2 Others v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2021WRIC/1208/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition by following its previous judgment in Chandrashekhar Yadav, quashing the list of disqualified directors to the extent it included petitioners and directing restoration of their Digital Signature Certificates.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the list of disqualified directors to the extent it included petitioners; directed Respondents to restore their Digital Signature Certificates and Director Identification Number.

Preeti Pandey and 2 Others Vs Union of India and… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1208 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Preeti Pandey And 2 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Dev Vyas Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Krishna Dev Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Girish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents - 1 and 2.

¶6

The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners for the following relief:-

¶7

"1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing/set aside the list of disqualified directors dated 29.11.2018 (hereinafter referred as "said list") to the extent that it includes the name of the Petitioners.

¶8

2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to use their Digital Signature Certificate and Director Identification Number.

¶9

3. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to ensure that the Petitioners are not prevented from being appointed as Director in 'active' companies."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court, passed in Writ-C No.14580 of 2020 (Chandrashekhar Yadav Vs. Union of India and another) dated 7.10.2020 and prayed that the issue raised in the instant petition is squarely covered and set at rest by the judgment aforesaid. The aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶11

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of India and perused the record.

¶12

2. In this writ petition, petitioner is Director of Company and has been disqualified under Section 164(2) of Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013") and also declared to have suffered consequences of such disqualification under Section 167(1) of Act, 2013. Petitioner has also challenged list of Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as "ROC") declaring petitioner as disqualified for a period of five years to be Director of Companies.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for parties, at the outset, admitted that issues raised in the present writ petition has already been adjudicated by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12498 of 2019, Jai Shankar Agrahari vs. Union of India and another , decided on 16.01.2020. Operative part of judgment reads as under:

¶14

"83. We accordingly allow writ petitions partly. We also quash the list published by ROC, declaring petitioners in all these writ petitions as disqualified to be Directors of companies and debarment of being Director for a period of five years.

¶15

84. ROC, now, shall be at liberty to give a notice to petitioners to verify and establish the facts whether disqualification alleged to have been suffered by petitioners-Directors so as to attract Section 164 (2) of Act, 2013, actually exist or not. After giving them opportunity and being satisfied that such disqualification has occurred, it will proceed further in accordance with law."

¶16

4. We have also gone through the record and above judgment, and find that issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

¶17

5. For the reasons given in our judgment dated 16.01.2020 in Jai Shankar Agrahari (supra) and in the same terms and directions, the present writ petition is partly allowed."

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the said fact.

¶19

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of Chandrashekhar Yadav (supra) .

¶20

Order Date :- 20.1.2021 T. Sinha

Preeti Pandey and 2 Others v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preeti Pandey and 2 Others v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hriday Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Siya Rani Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Zulfiqar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sualey Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Barfi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Parashuram Rai and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others