Dismissed

Mr Hassan Kiran Annaji v. Union of India

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021WP/13421/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and disqualification due to non-filing of returns was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner was ineligible to be a director as their company failed to file returns for 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with finding that petitioner stands disqualified from directorship due to non-filing of financial returns for three consecutive years.

Mr Hassan Kiran Annaji Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P No.13421/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.13421 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

MR. HASSAN KIRAN ANNAJI S/O H.T. ANNAJI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O SRI. GOVIND IN FRONT OF RTO OFFICE SBM COLONY, HARALAHALLI HASSAN-573 201 ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI. ATUL K. ALUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF CORPORATION AFFAIRS SHASTRI BHAWAN DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD NEW DELHI-110 001

¶13

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES E-WING, 2^ND FLOOR KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034 ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT. M.R. SINCHANA, CGC)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT SECTION 164(2)(a) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND THE WEB RELEASE DATED 26.7.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A, QUA DIRECTORS OF

¶16

W.P No.13421/2021

¶17

¶18

PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS IN VIOLATION AD IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND / OR AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Registrar of Companies, Bengaluru, issued a notice on 26.07.2017 as per Annexure-A, notifying that it was proposed to strike off the name of the Companies listed therein from the Register of Companies within thirty days therefrom, providing an opportunity for any person to file his/her objections within thirty days. It is averred in the first para of the writ petition that the Company did not respond to any notice and Registrar of Companies proceeded to strike off M/s Ghats Promoters India Private Limited from his register.

¶22

It is further averred that the petitioner has been disqualified under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013¹ .

¶23

1 'Act' for short

¶24

¶25

Petitioner has challenged his disqualification and

¶26

sought for a further direction to unblock his DIN² .

¶27

Shri Atul Alur, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that no notice has been issued to the petitioner before issuing the list of disqualified directors. The Registrar of Companies has no power to issue notice as per Annexure-A. In support of this submission, he sought to place reliance on para 37 of the decision of the Madras High Court delivered on 09.10.2020 in Writ Appeal No.569/2020 and connected cases.

¶28

Smt.Sinchana, learned CGC submitted that petitioner-company has not filed annual returns for the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. Therefore, by operation of law, petitioner is disqualified for appointment as a director in any company.

¶29

I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

¶30

2 Director's Identification Number

¶31

W.P No.13421/2021

¶32

¶33

In Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India, rep. by

¶34

its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi and Another³ , this Court has held as follows:

¶35

"(i) xxxxxxx

¶36

(ii) xxxxxxx

¶37

(iii) If the disqualification of the directors is based by taking into consideration three continuous financial years subsequent to 01.04.2014, irrespective of whether the petitioners are directors of public companies or private companies, they stand disqualified under the Act;

¶38

XXXXXX "

¶39

An appeal against the decision in Yashodhara

¶40

Shroff is pending before the Division Bench of this Court .

¶41

As per Section 164 of the Act, a person shall not be eligible

¶42

for appointment as a Director of a Company if he falls within the categories mentioned therein.

¶43

In the instant case, admittedly, petitioner's

¶44

company has not filed financial returns for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. Therefore, petitioner shall

¶45

not be eligible for appointment as a director in any company

¶46

3 ILR 2019 KAR 3768

¶47

¶48

as per Section 164(2)(a) of the Act. Hence, this writ

¶49

petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶50

No costs.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Yn.

Mr Hassan Kiran Annaji v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Hassan Kiran Annaji v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri v Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka

Amrita S Nair Vs Mr. Tushar

Amrita S Nair Vs Janmejai Shukla

Mr Chikkadoddi Puttaswamy Umesha Vs the Union of India

Mr.Indrayudh Ghoshal Vs the Union of India

M/S Safe Vs State of Karnataka