Dismissed

Mr.Indrayudh Ghoshal v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021WP/2808/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the disqualification of petitioners as directors due to non-filing of returns for financial years 2015-16 to 2017-18. The Court held that the disqualification follows Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013, and dismissed the matter relying on Yashodhara Shroff.

What did the court decide?

The petition to remove names from the list of disqualified directors was dismissed with no costs.

Mr.Indrayudh Ghoshal Vs the Union of India — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P. No.2808/2021

¶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.2808 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

MR. INDRAYUDH GHOSHAL S/O RANJAN KUMAR GHOSHAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS AT P-47, 2^ND FLOOR 6^TH MAIN, 8^TH CROSS LIC COLONY, JEEVABIMA NAGAR

¶10

BANGALORE-75

¶11

MS. SANGEETA GHOSAL W/O RANJAN KUMAR GHOSHAL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶12

2^ND FLOOR, 6^TH MAIN, 8^TH CROSS LIC COLONY, JEEVABIMA NAGAR

¶13

BANGALORE-75 ... PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SHRI. S. GURU PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

THE UNION OF INDIA A WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶17

THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS A WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD NEW DELHI-110 001

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶19

W.P. No.2808/2021

¶20

¶21

THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DELHI, 4^TH FLOOR, IFCI TOWER 61, NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI-110 019

¶22

THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES BANGALORE, 'E' WING 2^ND FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADANA KORMANGALA

¶23

BANGALORE -560 034 ... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO R4 TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE LIST OF DISQUALIFIED DIRECTORS PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE OF R-4 AND UPDATE THE LIST OF DISQUALIFIED DIRECTORS WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS THEREIN.

¶26

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:-

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have presented this writ petition with a

¶29

prayer inter alia to direct respondents No.2 to 4 to remove

¶30

their names from the list of disqualified directors.

¶31

It is averred in the writ petition that petitioners

¶32

have been disqualified from their directorship on the Board of other companies and the same is illegal.

¶33

W.P. No.2808/2021

¶34

¶35

3. Learned advocate for petitioners argued that

¶36

petitioners have been disqualified to be directors on the Board of other companies and such act is a drastic one. Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013¹ has come into effect on 01.04.2018 and therefore, the third continuous financial year would be the year ending March 31, 2020. Therefore the disqualification for non-filing of returns prior to Section 164 of the Act coming into force is bad in law.

¶37

Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned Standing Counsel for respondents adverting to paragraph No.14 of the Counter Affidavit filed through the Registrar of Companies, submitted that petitioners were directors of M/s Boohen Technologies Private Limited. The said company has not filed financial statements and annual returns for the period 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Therefore, petitioners have incurred disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act.

¶38

I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records

1 'Act' for short

W.P. No.2808/2021

6. This Court in Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of

¶43

India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi and Another² , has held as follows:

¶44

"(i) xxxxxxx

¶45

(ii) xxxxxxx

¶46

(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;

¶47

XXXXXX "

¶48

In the instant case, admittedly, petitioners-

¶49

company has not filed financial returns for the period 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Therefore, by operation

¶50

of law namely, Section 164 of the Companies Act, petitioners shall not be eligible for appointment as directors

¶51

in any company. In view of the law laid down in

2 ILR 2019 KAR 3768

W.P. No.2808/2021

Yashodhara Shroff, this petition does not merit any consideration and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶56

No costs.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Mr.Indrayudh Ghoshal v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Indrayudh Ghoshal v. the 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 Hassan Kiran Annaji Vs Union of India

Mr Chikkadoddi Puttaswamy Umesha Vs the Union of India

M/S Safe Vs State of Karnataka