Dismissed

Mr Chikkadoddi Puttaswamy Umesha v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021WP/7389/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the suspension of the petitioner's Director Identification Number. The court held that disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013, occurs by operation of law due to non-filing of returns, rendering the natural justice argument untenable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to the respondents.

Mr Chikkadoddi Puttaswamy Umesha Vs the Union of India — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P. No.7389/2020

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.7389 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MR. CHIKKADODDI PUTTASWAMY UMESHA S/O MR. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.210, 4^TH MAIN 10^TH CROSS, NGEF LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560 072 KARNATAKA ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. B.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

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

¶11

THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES BENGALURU, E-WING, 2^ND FLOOR KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA

¶12

BENGALURU-560 034 ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SHRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, CGC)

¶14

[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]

¶15

W.P. No.7389/2020

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION/SUSPENSION OF THE DIRECTOR IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DIN) OF THE PETITIONER (HAVING DIN NO.03099023), FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.11.2018 TO 31.10.2023 VIDE ANNX-A, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶18

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:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner has presented this writ petition with a prayer inter alia to quash suspension of his DIN (Director Identification Number) for the period 01.11.2018 to 31.10.2023.

¶21

It is averred in the writ petition and argued that petitioner is being subjected to disqualification without following the principles of natural justice. Due to disqualification, he is unable to file statutory forms and carry out necessary compliances.

¶22

Shri Bhimaiah, learned Standing Counsel for respondents adverting to paragraph No.5 of statement of objections filed through the Registrar of Companies,

¶23

W.P. No.7389/2020

¶24

¶25

submitted that petitioner was a Director of M/s.Putani Homes Private Limited. The said company has not filed annual returns for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Therefore, petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013¹ .

¶26

I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records

¶27

This Court in Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi and Another² , has held as follows:

¶28

"(i) xxxxxxx

¶29

(ii) xxxxxxx

¶30

(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;

¶31

XXXXXX "

¶32

In the instant case, admittedly, petitioners-

¶33

company has not filed financial returns for the years

¶34

1 'Act' for short

¶35

2 ILR 2019 KAR 3768

¶36

W.P. No.7389/2020

¶37

¶38

2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Therefore, by operation of law namely, Section 164 of the Companies Act, petitioner shall not be eligible for appointment as a director in any company. The solitary ground pleaded and urged in this writ petition that principles of natural justice have been violated is untenable because the disqualification occurs by operation of law. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of

¶39

merits and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶40

No costs.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Yn.

Mr Chikkadoddi Puttaswamy Umesha v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Chikkadoddi Puttaswamy Umesha 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.Indrayudh Ghoshal Vs the Union of India

M/S Safe Vs State of Karnataka