This order allowed a Writ Petition allowing director disqualification and DIN deactivation predating 01.04.2014 under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013, following a prior common order by this court.
Disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) set aside and DIN activated; no order as to costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Writ Petition No.3350 of 2020
ORDER :
Aggrieved by the action of 2nd respondent – Registrar of Companies, in disqualifying the petitioner as Director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and in deactivating his Director Identification Number (DIN), the present Writ Petition has been filed.
“23. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the judgments referred to supra, as the impugned orders in present writ petitions disqualifying the petitioners as directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act, have been passed considering the period prior to 01.04.2014, the same cannot be sustained, and are liable to be set aside to that extent.
::2::
30. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the judgment referred to supra, the deactivation of the DINs of the petitioners for alleged violations under Section 164 of the Act, cannot be sustained.
31. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders in the writ petitions to the extent of disqualifying the petitioners under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act and deactivation of their DINs, are set aside, and the 2nd respondent is directed to activate the DINs of the petitioners, enabling them to function as Directors other than in strike off companies.
32. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the 2nd respondent from taking appropriate action in accordance with law for violations as envisaged under Section 164(2) of the Act, giving the said provision prospective effect from 01.04.2014 and for necessary action against DIN in case of violations of Rule 11 of the Rules.
33. It is also made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in striking off their companies under Section 248 of the Act, they are at liberty to avail alternative remedy under Section 252 of the Act. 34.
All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.”
::3::
Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
Date: 18.02.2020 dv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order disqualifying the petitioner as director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and deactivating his DIN for pre-amendment period violations can be set aside.
Whether the Writ Petition should be allowed mutatis mutandis based on the prior common order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Common Order dated 18.07.2019Followed¶15
W.P.No.5422 of 2018 and batch
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Registrar of Companies
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
