Disposed

A.Cader Buhari v. The Regional Director

Madras HC22 Dec 2022WP/34289/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner shareholder sought writ directing Regional Director to consider his representation regarding a fast-track demerger of group companies. Court held RD must examine petition, verify authority, then issue notice to all parties to decide within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Regional Director instructed to examine the representation and decide the matter within four weeks after giving notice to all parties.

A.Cader Buhari Vs The Regional Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

W.P.No.34289 of 2022

A.Cader Buhari

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs,

¶11

5^th Floor, Shastri Bhavan,

¶12

26, Haddows Road,

¶13

Chennai – 600 006.

¶14

2.The Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu

¶15

2^nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶16

3.Buharis Blue Lagoon Hotels Private Ltd., Represented by its Director, No.6, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶17

4.Buharis Blue Lagoon Beach Resort Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Door Nos.11 and 12, First Floor, Flat No.11,

¶18

1^st Cross Street, Kasthuribai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

¶21

5.Farina and Sons Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Door Nos.11 and 12, First Floor, Flat No.11, 1^st Cross Street, Kasthuribai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶22

6.Feroze and Sons Ventures Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Door Nos.11 and 12, First Floor, Flat No.11, 1^st Cross Street, Kasthuribai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶23

7.Rajab Fathima Private Limited, Represented by its Director, No.5/72, Raja Nagar, Neelankarai, Chennai – 600 115. .. Respondents

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.07.2022.

¶25

For Petitioner .. Mr.K.M.Anand For R1 & R2 .. Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy Central Govt. Standing Counsel

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner in the nature of

¶30

Mandamus, seeking a direction to consider the representation dated 15.07.2022.

¶31

2.The petitioner is a shareholder of about 15% in Buhari Group of Companies. The 3^rd to 7^th respondents, who are group companies of Buhari Group had filed a fast track demerger before the 1^st respondent namely, the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

¶32

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that, such application for the fast track demerger was filed without obtaining the consent of the petitioner or without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner, as a shareholder of 15% of the shares was of the expectation, that he would be heard or at least be informed about the demerger proposal of the 3^rd to 7^th respondents. It is stated that under the Companies Act, 2013, the fast track method for demerger had been simplified and the petitioner claims that he has no other alternate option and therefore, had forwarded the representation to the 1^st respondent on 15.07.2022.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

¶35

4.Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, takes notice for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents.

¶36

5.An obligation is placed on the 1^st respondent to examine the representation dated 15.07.2022 given by the petitioner. Before doing that, the 1^st respondent may examine the provisions of law and first satisfy whether the 1^st respondent is vested with suitable authority to examine such representation and if so, issue notice to the 3^rd to 7^th respondents and in the presence of the petitioner and the 3^rd to 7^th respondents take an appropriate decision with respect to the representation given by the petitioner. Such decision should be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

6.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶38

No costs.

¶39

22.12.2022

¶40

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No smv

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

¶43

¶44

1.The Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs,

¶45

5^th Floor, Shastri Bhavan,

¶46

26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶47

2.The Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu

¶48

2^nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan,

¶49

26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

¶52

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv

W.P.No.34289 of 2022

22.12.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Cader Buhari v. The Regional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Cader Buhari v. The Regional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.L.Shanmugam, Vs The Joint Director General of

B.Chinnammal Vs The Chairman

M.Palanisamy Vs The Thasildar

Maria Selvam Vs Competent authority

Palanivelu Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

B.Vatsala Vs The Member secretay