Dismissed

Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripanala Yogam v. Prof. M.K.Sanoo

Kerala HC8 Mar 2021RP/113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a review petition challenging a previous judgment regarding director disqualification. The court held that since the impugned judgment did not finally decide disqualification, a review was unnecessary but directed the Registration authority to consider the application without being bound by the previous court's specific observations.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed review petition; directed Inspector General of Registration to consider the petition untrammelled by previous observations.

Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripanala Yogam Vs… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.113 OF 2021 IN WP(C).19266/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/01/2021 IN W.P.(C) No.19266/2020(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7:

¶8

1 ARUVIPURAM SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPANALA YOGAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, V.K. NATESAN, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA, KOLLAM- 691 001.

¶9

2 V.K. NATESAN, S/O. KESAVAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, S.N.D.P. YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA, KOLLAM - 691 001, RESIDING AT VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE, KANICHUKULANGARA P. O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 582.

¶10

3 DR. M.N.SOMAN, PRESIDENT, S.N.D.P YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶11

4 THUSHAR, S/O. V. K. NATESAN, VICE PRESIDENT, S.N.D.P YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA, KOLLAM - 691 001., RESIDING AT VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 582.

¶12

RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

5 SANTHOSH @ ARYANKKANDIL SANTHOSH, DEVASWOM SECRETARY, S.N.D.P YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL

¶16

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶17

1 PROF. M.K.SANOO, AGED 93 YEARS, S/O. MANGALATH, M.C. KESAVAN, 'SANDYA', KARIKKAMURI, KOCHI - 682 011.

¶18

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶19

3 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, EX-MAYER R.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶20

R1 BY ADV SRI. P.B. KRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT DEEPA NARAYANAN

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020

: 3 :

O R D E R

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2021

¶27

Respondents 3 to 7 in W.P.(C) No.19266/2020

¶28

have filed this Review Petition seeking to review the judgment dated 05.01.2021 in the writ petition.

¶29

The writ petition was filed by the 1^st respondent seeking to declare that petitioners 2 to 5 herein are disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 to act as the Directors/office bearers of the 1^st petitionerYogam. The writ petition was disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent-Inspector General of Registration to consider and take a decision on Ext.P4 petition submitted by the writ petitioner within a period of three months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as well as the Directors of the 1^st petitioner-Yogam.

¶30

The counsel for the review petitioners argued that in paragraph 26 of the judgment of this Court, it has been

¶31

RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

stated that there are no materials to indicate that the Directors

¶34

of the Yogam took any effective steps to file annual returns/financial statements during the period from 2013-'14 to 2015-'16 and that even if such attempts were made unsuccessfully, that may not be sufficient to avert disqualification. The learned counsel pointed out that since Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 came into effect only from 01.04.2014, the three financial years should be counted from 2014-'15 and not from 2013-'14, as erroneously held in the judgment.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras has held in the judgments in Kandrikar Ehsan Ahmed v. Union of India and another [2021 SCC OnLine Mad 719] and in the judgment in WA No.569/2020 and connected appeals that disqualification of Directors on failure to file Annual Returns/Financial Statements is not automatic. The judgment in W.P.(C) No.19266/2020 is liable to be reviewed on that ground also.

¶36

RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent argued that even if the financial year is to be counted from 2014-'15 as argued by the review petitioners, the final outcome of the writ petition will be the same. As regards the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras on the question of disqualification of Directors, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent pointed out that this Court arrived at a conclusion on the said issue based on reasons and the same is not liable

¶39

to be altered only because the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras has taken a different view.

¶40

I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶41

It may be noted that in the writ petition, this Court has not finally decided the question of disqualification as Directors, of the review petitioners. This Court directed the 3^rd respondent to consider the issue, with notice to affected parties. Therefore, even if the observations of this Court are erroneous, it will not affect the review petitioners. This Court

¶42

does not find that the judgment is liable to be reviewed in view

¶43

RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020

¶44

: 6 :

¶45

of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras.

¶46

However, there is some force in the argument of

¶47

the learned counsel for the review petitioners that the financial year should be counted from the year 2014-'15 for the purpose of disqualification of Directors. Since in the judgment in writ petition, the issue of disqualification is left to be decided by the 3^rd respondent, this Court does not deem it necessary to review the judgment. The review petition can be disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the issues untrammelled by the observations/findings of this Court.

¶48

In the circumstances, the review petition is disposed of making it clear that the 3^rd respondent shall consider Ext.P4 petition as directed in the judgment untrammelled by any observations contained in the judgment.

¶49

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶50

aks/10.03.2021

Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripanala Yogam v. Prof. M.K.Sanoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripanala Yogam v. Prof. M.K.Sanoo

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

Philip John Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Johnson, Vs the Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra

Kinallur Rock Sand Vs State of Kerala

Francis Vadakkel Vs the Government of Kerala

The Kuttippuram Grama Panchayath Vs Welfare Services Ernakulam

Vaikundan Achary Vs State of Kerala