Allowed

Sri Velamati Ramnath v. Union of India

Telangana HC2 Dec 2020WP/21614/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their director disqualification under the Companies Act, 2013 alleging arbitrary action violating constitutional rights. The High Court allowed the petition allowing the operative order from a batched writ petition dated 18.07.2019, directing restoration of DINs without costs.

What did the court decide?

Disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 set aside and Director Identification Numbers (DINs) restored.

Sri Velamati Ramnath Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF^DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21614 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Srj Velamati Ramnath, S/o Velamati Raghunadha Rao, Aged about. 64 years. Fi"/o H.No. 8-2-3118123. Road No. 14. NavodayaNagara, Banjara Hills, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Telangana State - 500 034

¶9

Smt Sai Eswari Velamati, W/oVelamati Rmanath Aged about. 61 years Rl/o H.No. 8-2-3118123, Road No. 14, Navodaya Nagara, Banjara Hills, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500 034.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

Union of lndia, Represented by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajender Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110001

¶13

The Registrar of Companies, Telangana 2nd Floor, Corporate Bhawan, Thattiannaram. G.S.l. Post, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500068.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or any other proceedings one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in disqualifying the petitioner as a directors and deactivating the 1st petitioner Director ldentification Number (DlN) 01303846, 2nd petitioner Director ldentification Number (DlN) 01303805, and restricting the petitioners from filing statutory returns, i.e., the annual returns and financial stalements of the Companies in which they are Directors as arbitrary, illegal, without^{jurisdiction,} contrary of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 1 1 of the Companies (Appointment of Directors) Rules, 2014, violative of the principles of natural^justice besides violating the petitioner rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 19 (1 ) (g) of the Constitution of lndia lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent to restore the^'1st petitioner Director ldentification Number (DlN) 0'1303846,2nd petitioner Director ldentification Number (DlN) 01303805, so as to enable petitioners to submit pending annual returns and financial statements for the Companies in which they arc appointed as directors

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. ANGOTHU NEHRU

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶19

(ASSTSTANT SOLtCtTOR GENERAL)

¶20

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶23

WRIT PETITION No. 21614 of 2O2O ORDER:

¶24

The petitioners challenge their disqualification lrom Directorship under Section 16aQ) of the Companies Act, 2013, for the alleged default in filing financial statement/ Annual Returns, and consequently, seek restoration of the Director Identification Number (DIN) viz. O 1303846 and O 13O38O5 respectively.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the common order dated 18.07.2019 in W.P.No.5422 of 201-8 and batch.

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel for the 2"d respondent - Registrar of Companies does not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶27

Operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:

¶28

"For^{the foregolng reasons,the impugned orders in} the writ petitions to the extent of disqualifying the petitioners under Section L64l2llal of the Act and deactivation of their DINs, are set aside, and the^2"d respondent is directed to activate the DINs of the^petitioners, enabllng them to function as Directors other than in strike off companies.

¶29

It is made clear that this order will not^precludethe 2"d respondent from taking aPPropriate^{actionin accordance} with law for violations as envisaged under^{Section164(2) of} the Act, giving the said^provision ProsPective^{effect from} OL.O4.2OL4 and for necessary action^{against DIN in case of} violations of Rule 11 of the^Rules.

¶30

It is also made clear that if the Petitioners^ale aggrieved by the actlon of^{the respondentsin striklngoff} their companies under Sectlou^{248 of tbe Act, they are at} llberty to avail alternative^{remedyunder Sectlon 252 of the} Act.

¶31

All the wrlt petitlons are accordingly^{allowed to the} extent lndicated above."

¶32

¶33

In vieu' of the said Order dated 1A.O7.2O19 and for the

¶34

¶35

reasons recorded therein, this Writ Petition is also allou,ed in terms

¶36

thereof. No costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous Petitions, il any stand closed.

¶38

SD/-M,MANJU ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPYi/

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Union of lndia, Represented by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajender Prasad Road, New Delhi - 11000'1

¶44

The Registrar of Companies, Telangana 2nd Floor, Corporate Bhawan,

¶45

Thattiannaram. G.S.l. Post, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500068.

¶46

One CC to SRl. ANGOTHU NEHRU Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to SRl. NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO(ASSGI) Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

Two CD Copies

Avs

\ "-

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211212020

ORDER

WP.No.21614 ol²⁰²⁰

t{e S TA 14,
o
1 0 t)EC 2U0 c
4
*
rk
.9 PAT

¶57

ALLOWING^{OF THE WP} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶58

Sri Velamati Ramnath v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Velamati Ramnath v. 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

M/s. Kommidi Constructions Vs The Union of India

Kommineni Narasimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Kanaparthi Ajay Chandra, Vs The Registrar

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal and Another Vs The Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Another

Avexa - Railone Jv Vs Union of India

Sri a. Srinivas Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others