Petitioner challenged disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of Companies Act, 2013 claiming unconstitutional broader application of preamble. Court dismissed petition relying on interim stay on Yashodara Shroff judgment in Nagarajan Tumu appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.1255 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. SARAVANAN PALANIAPPAN S/O. PALANIAPPA MALAYANDI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 103, INGLEWOOD ESTATE, KOMMAKADU YERCAUD, SALEM RURAL, TAMIL NADU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. S. FOWZIYA AND SRI GANGADHARA D.C., ADVs.)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, C.G.S.C.)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE SECTION 164(2)(a) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 6-9-2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER AS GUARANTEED UNDER PROVISIONS OF PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Heard Smt. S. Fowziya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Four Technologies Private Limited. Since financial returns were not filed, he has been disqualified for five years with effect from 1-11-2016 to 31-10-2021. Petitioner has challenged the same in this writ petition.
3
Union of India and another1 has held that where the disqualification of the petitioner is based by taking into consideration any financial year "prior to 1-4-2014 as well as subsequent thereto" while reckoning continuous period of three financial years under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, irrespective of whether the petitioner is Director of public companies or private companies, such a disqualification is bad in law. However, the said order has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and
another v. Nagarajan Tumu2 .
1 ILR 2019 KAR 3768
2 Writ Appeal No.2688 of 2019
4
2021 does not survive for consideration and it is disposed
of .
No costs.
SD/JUDGE
kvk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging director disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 can be allowed in view of a stay order on the underlying principle.
Whether the financial returns filing requirement under Section 164(2)(a) violates fundamental rights of directors irrespective of company type.
Whether the petition impugning the automatic five-year disqualification should be allowed or dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yashodara Shroff v. Union of India and anotherReferred¶26
1 ILR 2019 KAR 3768 · Who else cites this
Union of India and another v. Nagarajan TumuApplied¶26
Writ Appeal No.2688 of 2019
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MR. SARAVANAN PALANIAPPAN
UNION OF INDIA
THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
