Disposed

M.Viswanathan v. The Union of India

Madras HC4 May 2018WP/11850/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition challenging the disqualification of the petitioner as a Director. Instead of deciding the merits, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Registrar of Companies for a review of the order before approaching the NCLT.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to approach the Registrar of Companies for review of the impugned order; to approach NCLT if aggrieved.

M.Viswanathan 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.11850 of 2018 and

¶6

W.M.P.Nos.13835 & 13836 of 2018

¶7

M.Viswanathan ... 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 00996523 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

4.The Companies Act, 2013, is a composite Act, which provides for appellate remedy and if the contention of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is correct that no opportunity was given, the

¶15

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 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

Sd/-
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.
+ 1 cc to M/s. A.S. Baalaji, Advocate Sr.33158

¶18

W.P.No.11850 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.13835 & 13836 of 2018

¶19

SL(CO) EU(08/05/2018 )

¶20

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

M.Viswanathan v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Viswanathan 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.Krishna Sai, Vs The Union of India