Dismissed

Mr Tallam Nanjunda Satish v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2021WP/200/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court (Bengaluru Bench) dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of directors' disqualification. The bench noted the petitioner's company lacked financial returns but held the petition must fail due to an interim order staying the Yashodara Shroff precedent which had ruled such disqualification bad in law.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; No costs.

Mr Tallam Nanjunda Satish Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.200/2020 (GM RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR TALLAM NANJUNDA SATISH S/O MR.TALLAM N.NANJUNDA SETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.133 RAILWAY PRALLEL ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 020.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT.PRADNYA GADRE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

1 . THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001

¶11

2 . THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES BENGALURU 2^ND FLOOR, KENDRIYA SEDAN, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034. …. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS OF DISQUALIFICATION FOR THE BLOCK OF YEARS 2014-2019, 2018-2020 AND 2016-2021 (ANNX-A, B AND C) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard Smt.Pradnya Gadre, learned Advocate for petitioner and Shri. K.S. Bheemaiah, learned CGC for respondents.

¶18

Petitioner is a director in M/s.Fine Pharma Private Limited. The said company has not filed financial returns right from the date of incorporation. By operation of law, the petitioner has been disqualified.

¶19

This Court in Yashodara Shroff Vs. Union of India and another¹ has held that where the

¶20

disqualification of the petitioner is based by taking into

¶21

1 ILR 2019 KAR 3768

¶22

¶23

consideration any financial year "prior to 01.04.2014

¶24

as well as subsequent thereto" while reckoning continuous period of three financial years under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act, 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 Union of India and

¶25

another and Nagarajan Tamu² .

¶26

In view of the interim order passed by the

¶27

Division Bench of this Court, this petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶28

No costs.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

2 W.A.No.2688/2019

¶31

NBM

Mr Tallam Nanjunda Satish v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Tallam Nanjunda Satish v. the Secretary

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

Sri M K Kamal Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. R. Suresh Vs the Chief Election Officer

M/S. Airguns Co. in Vs the Commissioner of Police

The Accountant Generals Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kankalapati Damodhar Vs the Union Bank of India

D Shivaraj Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka