Disposed

M.Krishna Sai, v. The Union of India

Madras HC4 May 2018WP/11848/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order disqualifying the petitioner as a director for non-filing of financial statements. The Court held that since the Act provides appellate remedies, the petitioner should approach the Registrar for review or the NCLT for an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to approach the Registrar of Companies for review or the NCLT for appeal; no costs.

M.Krishna Sai, Vs The Union of India — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.05.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

W.P.No.11848 of 2018 and

¶6

W.M.P.Nos.13832 & 13833 of 2018

¶7

M.Krishna Sai ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1.The Union of India rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Company Affairs, New Delhi. 2.The Registrar of Companies, Block No.6, B-Wing, 2^nd Floor, Shastri Bhawan, #26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the notification dated 01.11.2016 list published in the 2^nd respondent site on 01.11.2017 in respect of the petitioner DIN 1756018 and quash the same and direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to get re-appointed in the Company without any hindrance.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Baalaji O R D E R

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Registrar of Companies under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.

¶12

2.The said impugned order is attacked on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order disqualifying him from holding the post of Director in any Company for a period of five years.

¶13

3.On factual matrix, it is contended that he has not violated any of the provisions, particularly, non-filing of the financial statements of the Company in which he is holding the Director post.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

4.The Companies Act, 2013, is a composite Act, which provides for appellate remedy and if the contention of the petitioner is correct that no opportunity was given, the Authority, who has passed, can review the order himself, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶16

5.Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Registrar of Companies and make his submissions for reviewing the impugned order. If he is aggrieved by the order of the ROC, then it is always open to the petitioner to approach the NCLT, which is the Appellate Forum under the Act. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶17

s/d-
Assistant Registrar/Vacation officer
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Company Affairs,
New Delhi.
2.The Registrar of Companies,
Block No.6, B-Wing, 2 nd Floor,
Shastri Bhawan, #26, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 034.

¶18

+1 CC to Mr.A.S. Balaji, Advocate sr 33157.

¶19

W.P.No.11848 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.13832 & 13833 of 2018

¶20

SP(08/05/2018)

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Krishna Sai, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Krishna Sai, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rathi Vs The District Collector

S.Muralidharan Vs State by

Mr.K.R.Vijayamurugan Vs University Grants Commission

Periyammal Vs Angaiya Pandithar

A.v.Dhanapalan, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M.Viswanathan Vs The Union of India