The petitioner challenged a default notice and was not listed as a director. Respondents submitted the company was struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act 2013, rendering the notice under the repealed 1956 Act void. The court dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P.Nos. 23342 of 2003 & 4100 of 2009 and
M.P.No.28818 of 2003 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Virender Sood ... Petitioner in both W.Ps
Vs
Chennai 600 006.
Chennai 600 006.
...Respondents in W.P 23342 / 2003
PRAYER in W.P.23342 of 2003 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the notice issued by the 2nd respondent vide NO.34389/146/ROC/2003/IPC dated 29.05.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to accept the resignation submitted by the petitioner directly to the first respondent dated 21.05.2001 and consequently hold that the petitioner is not a director of the 3rd respondent company and further direct the deletion of the name of the
1/5
petitioner from the list of directors of the 3rd respondent company .
PRAYER in W.P.4100 of 2009 :Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the notice issued by the 2nd respondent vide F.No.U65922 TN 1996 PLC034389/Default notice/gmn/2008 dated 13.01.2009 and quash the same
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit stating that now the company itself was struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act 2013. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as follows :
" It is humbly stated that since the violations pointed out in the notice pertains to the new-repealed Companies Act 1956 and the Company itself was "Struck Off"under Section 248 of the Companies Act 2013 and no prosecution has been launched so far in the matter, the impugned notice lapses due to the repeal of the Companies Act 1956. "
Sd/-
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
2/5
mrp
To
1. The Registrar of Companies,
Government of India,
Shastri Bhavan,
Block No.6, II Floor,
26, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Assistant Registrar of Companies,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai,
C/o. Registrar of Companies,
Shastri Bhavan,
Block No.6, II Floor,
26, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006.
3. M/s. Sai Home Finance Ltd.,
8,Thirumalai Pillai Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017
+1cc to Mr.R.G.Narendhiran , Advocate SR.No. 77002
+1cc to Mr.A.Vijayakumar , Advocate SR.No. 77666
W.P. 23342 of 2003
mr
A.SK(14/10/2019)
3/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a notice issued under the repealed Companies Act 1956 survives where the company was subsequently struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act 2013.
Whether the impugned notice lapses upon the repeal of the Companies Act 1956 and the striking off of the company.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Virender Sood
The Registrar of Companies, Government of India
The Assistant Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu
M/s. Sai Home Finance Ltd.
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
