Ms. Alivia Das Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

Ms. Alivia Das Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent Nos.3 to 5 (ICSI, Director (Discipline) and Disciplinary Committee) directed to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of the communication at Annexure-A, notwithstanding the prima facie opinion already given, and to consider the petitioner's case afresh; all contentions kept open; no opinion expressed on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner (a qualified Company Secretary) was in violation of Rule 8 of the Company Secretary Rules, 2007 and the principle of natural justice, in that the complaint made against her was not sent to her as contemplated under Rule 8.

Court's answer

Since the only ground urged by the petitioner was violation of the principle of natural justice (the complaint not having been sent to her as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Company Secretary Rules, 2007), and the petitioner has already submitted her reply/response, it would suffice if respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to proceed from the stage of issuance of the communication at Annexure-A afresh, notwithstanding the opinion already given.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of, and respondent Nos.3 to 5 shall proceed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh as directed above.

Key takeaways

All contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged (points expressly left open).obiter¶48
It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.obiter¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Alivia Das, a qualified Company Secretary, challenged the prima facie opinion dated 16.08.2022 of the Director (Discipline), ICSI (Annexure-A) finding her guilty of professional misconduct and the ensuing disciplinary proceedings (No.DEC/667/2022, Annexures-B and C) before the Disciplinary Committee, contending that the action violated Rule 8 of the Company Secretary Rules, 2007 in that the complaint was not sent to her. Proceedings had been stayed by interim order dated 21.11.2022, and the petitioner had in the meantime submitted her reply/response. Holding the sole grievance to be one of violation of natural justice, the High Court disposed of the writ petition under Article 226, directing respondent Nos.3 to 5 to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of the Annexure-A communication notwithstanding the opinion already given; all contentions were kept open and no opinion was expressed on the merits.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1138 WP No. 20302 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.20302 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MS. ALIVIA DAS D/O LATE TARUN DAS AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.30, INFANT’S LILY, JEEVAN KENDRA LAYOUT CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ULSOOR BENGALURU-560 008.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT.SINDHU.V FOR SRI SIVA RAMA KRISHNAN.M.S, ADVOCATES

AND:

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD NEW DELHI -110 001

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES KARNATAKA, BENGALURU MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS E-WING, 2^ND FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 034

THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANIES SECRETARIES OF INDIA (ICSI)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1138 WP No. 20302 of 2022

HC-KAR

STATUTORY BODY UNDER AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT – COMPANY SECRETARIES ACT,1980 (UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS) HAVING OFFICE AT ICSI HOUSE 22, INDUSTRIAL AREA, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.ASHISH MOHAN

DIRECTOR (DESCIPLINE) DISCIPLINARY DIRECTORATE THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA (ICSI) ICSI HOUSE, 22, INDUSTRIAL AREA, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 003 (OFFICE PRESENTLY HELD BY MR.ASHOK KUMAR DIXIT)

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANIES SECRETARIES OF INDIA (ICSI), ICSI HOUSE, 22, INDUSTRIAL AREA, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 003 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDING OFFICER MR.CS DEVENDRA V. DESHPANDE

ONE PLUS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 CIN: U74990KA2020FTC139455 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT UB CITY 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, KG HALLI D’SOUZA LAYOUT, ASHOK NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR NITIN RADHAKISAN AJAGE

…RESPONDENTS

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1138 WP No. 20302 of 2022

HC-KAR

(BY SMT.ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI RAHUL JAIN FOR SRI MOHAMMED HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATES FOR R3 TO R5;

VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2022, NOTICE NOT ISSUED TO R6 FOR THE PRESENT)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, R5 HEREIN IN NO.DEC/667/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE –B AND ANNEXURE-C ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED OPINION OF R4, HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner herein is a qualified Company Secretary, having been issued the order dated 16.08.2022, produced at Annexure – A, purporting to be the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) ICSI, finding her guilty of professional misconduct, resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceedings as per Annexures - B and C is before this Court, contending that the initiation of action by the respondent was in violation of Rule 8 of Company Secretary Rules, 2007, which reads as under:

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1138 WP No. 20302 of 2022

HC-KAR

“8. Procedure to be followed by Director on a complaint

(1) The Director or an officer or officers autjorized by the Director, within sixty days of receipt of a complaint under rule 3, shall –

(a) If the Complaint is against any individual member, send particulars of the acts of commission or omission alleged or a copy of the complaint, as the case may be, to that member at his professional address;”

This Court by Order dated 21.11.2022 taking note of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner had stayed the proceedings.

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reply/response to the aforesaid prima facie opinion produced at Annexure - A and notices at Annexures - B and C have already been submitted by the petitioner. Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 on the other hand submits that the proceedings are stayed in view of the interim order granted by this Court.

After hearing the parties, this Court is of the considered view, since only ground urged by the petitioner is violation of principle of natural justice, in that the complaint

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1138 WP No. 20302 of 2022

HC-KAR

made against the petitioner was not sent to her as contemplated under Rule 8 of Company Secretary Rules, 2007 as referred to supra, also in the light of petitioner having submitted the reply/response, it would suffice if respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to proceed from the stage of issuance of the communication at Annexure – A afresh notwithstanding the opinion already given.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 shall proceed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh as directed above.

All contentions are kept open to be urged by the parties.

It is made clear that no opinion is expressed and order is passed on the merits of the case.

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

MR