Allowed

Mr. Natarajan Kannan v. The Union of India

Madras HC18 Feb 2021WP/3465/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the disqualification order passed against the petitioner as a director of M/s.First Aero Tex Pvt.Ltd. The court held that the order was passed without issuing notice and applied the ratio of a Division Bench judgment regarding invalid DIN deactivation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order disqualifying the petitioner as director was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

Mr. Natarajan Kannan Vs The Union of India — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.02.2021 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶3

W.P. No.3465 of 2021

¶4

and

¶5

WMP Nos.3968 and 3969 of 2021

¶6

Natarajan Kannan ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Union of India rep. By its Ministry of Corporate Affairs Shastri Bhawan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi - 110 001. 2. Registrar of Companies Tamil Nadu, Chennai, Block No.6, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhawan,26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006 . ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 uploaded in the website of the first respondent in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned with Director Identification No.05329432 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue as a director or get appointed or reappointed as Director of any Company without any hindrance.

¶10

This writ petition has been filed challenging the disqualification of the petitioner as Director under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 on the ground that he has not

¶11

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

¶12

submitted his financial statements for three consecutive financial years. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the second respondent on the ground that without affording opportunity to the petitioner, the said order has been passed.

¶13

Heard Mr.A.R.Palanisaamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Baskaran, learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents.

¶14

By consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

¶15

It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and therefore the said order is bad in law.

¶16

The issue raised in this writ petition was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 09.10.2020 in W.A. No.569 & Ors. of 2020 in the case of Meetgelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan Versus Union of India & Another and in paragraphs 36 and 38, it has been held as follows :

¶17

As is evident from the above, Rules 9 and 10 deals with the application for allotment of DIN. Rule 10 (6) specifies that the DIN is valid for the life time of the applicant and shall not be allotted to any other person. Rule 11 provides for the cancellation or surrender or deactivation of the DIN. It is very clear upon examining Rule 11 that neither cancellation nor deactivation is provided for upon disqualification under Section 164(2) of CA 2013. In this connection, it is also pertinent to refer to Section 167(1) of CA 2013 which provides for vacating the office of director by a director of a Defaulting Company. As a corollary, it follows that if a person is a director of five companies, which may be referred to as companies A to E, if the default is committed by company A by not filing financial statements or annual returns, the said director of company A would incur disqualification and would vacate office as director of companies B to E. However, the said person would not vacate office as director of company A. If such person does not vacate office and continues to be a director of company A, it is necessary that such person continues to retain the DIN. In this connection, it is also pertinent to point out that it is not possible to file either the financial

¶18

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

¶19

statements or the annual returns without a DIN. Consequently, the director of Defaulting Company A, in the above example, would be required to retain the DIN so as to make good the deficiency by filing the respective documents. Thus, apart from the fact that the AQD Rules do not empower the ROC to deactivate the DIN, we find that such deactivation would also be contrary to Section 164(2) read with 167(1) of CA 2013 inasmuch as the person concerned would continue to be a director of the Defaulting Company.

¶20

In the result, these appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2020. Consequently, the publication of the list of disqualified directors by the ROC and the deactivation of the DIN of the Appellants is hereby quashed. As a corollary to our conclusion on the deactivation of DIN, the DIN of the respective directors shall be reactivated within 30 days of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Nonetheless, we make it clear that it is open to the ROC concerned to initiate action with regard to disqualification subject to an enquiry to decide the question of attribution of default to specific directors by taking into account the observations and conclusions herein. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

The case on hand stands on the same footing. In the instant case, also, no notice was given to the petitioner before disqualifying him as Director of M/s.First Aero Tex Pvt.Ltd.

¶22

For the foregoing reasons, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, dated 09.10.2020 in W.A. No.569 & batch applies to the facts of the instant case also.

¶23

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the second respondent disqualifying the petitioner as a Director of M/s.First Aero Tex Pvt.Ltd. under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 is hereby set aside in the terms indicated in the aforesaid judgment and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

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

¶28

srn

¶29

¶30

The Union of India rep. By its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶31

The Registrar of Companies Tamil Nadu, Chennai, Block No.6, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhawan,26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskaran , Advocate SR.No. 9489 W.P. No.3465 of 2021 and

¶32

WMP Nos.3968 and 3969 of 2021

¶33

A.SK(15.03.2021)

¶34

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

Mr. Natarajan Kannan v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Natarajan Kannan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Margret Jeevaraj Vs The District Collector

S.Settu Vs The Inspector of police

M/s.Sri Nidhi Textile Vs The Branch Manager

M/S.Pkp Feed Mills Pvt., Ltd., Vs v.Saravanan

M/s.Hotel Mount Heera Vs The Commissioner

Roshna Chandran Stonebridge Vs Regional Registration Officer