Allowed

Chaluvadi Venkata Narayana Rao and 2 Others v. Union of India and another

Telangana HC1 Feb 2021WP/2010/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petitions challenging the disqualification of petitioners under Section 164(2)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, ordering restoration of their DINs based on operational terms of a common order dated 18.07.2019. No costs awarded in this interim proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to activate the petitioners' Director Identification Numbers (DINs), restoring their directorships in other companies, without costs.

Chaluvadi Venkata Narayana Rao and 2 Others Vs Union of India… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2010 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chaluvadi Venkata Narayana Rao, S/o. Anantha Subbarayudu Chaluvadi Age . 65Years, Occupation. Business, No. 2011A MUDFORT APPARTIUENTS WARD.3, HYDERABAD^.5OOOO9

¶10

Seetamahalakshrni Kumari Chaluvadi, D/o Rama Rao Kannegolla Age 57 Years, Occupation. Business. R/o. 201lA, It/ud Fort Apartments WARD-3, HYDERABAD - 5OOOO9

¶11

Leela Krishna Kiran Chaluvadi, S/o. Venkata Narayana Rao Chaluvadi Age. 33Years, Occupation. Business. No.2011A MUDFORT APPARTMENTS WARD3, HYDERABAD -5OOOO9

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

'1 . Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shastry Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg, New Delhi.

¶15

The Registrar, Office of Registrar of Companies, ROC, 2nd Floor, Corporate Bhavan, Near Central Water Board, GST Post, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hvderabad - 500068'

¶16

...RE.,.NDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue any appropriate wit, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in disqualifying the Petitioner invoking Section 16aQ) @) as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the^principles of natural justice. in violation of the provisions of the Companies Acl,2013 and in contravention of the rights guaranteed under Article^'14 and Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the DIN Nos.01498'167, 01498'1 75 and 0149820'1 of the Petitioners.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 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 Respondents to restore the DlNs of the Petitioners DIN Nos. 01498167 , 01498175 and 01498201 so as to enable the Petitioner to continue as Directors of^{the Company} and/or get appoint reappointed as Directors of any Company, wherein the^Petittoners can become Directors^pendlng disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. VANGA ANITA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,

¶21

ASST, SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSIICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVITI} IT TI No 10 202

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The^{petitioners chollenge their disquolificotion from} Directorship^{under Seclion 164121 ot the Componies Act' 2013' for} theollegeddefoultinfilingfinonciolstolement/AnnuolReturns,ond consequentlyseekrestorotionoftheirDirectorldentificoiion Numbers^{(DlN) viz., 01498167,01498175ond 01498201respectively'}

¶26

Leorned counsel^{for the petitionerssubmitsthot the issue} roised in lhe^{present Writ Petition is squorely covered by the} common orderdoted^{18.07.2019in W'P'No'5422of2018 ond botch'}

¶27

Leorned Assistont^{SolicitorGeneroloppeoringfor the 2nd} respondent^{- Registror of Componiesdoesnot dispute the oforesoid} submission.

¶28

Operotive^{portion of ihe oforesoid order reodsos under:}

¶29

"For the loregolng^{reosons,the lmpugnedorder in lhe wril} petitlons to lhe exlenl^{of dlsquolifyinglhe petilioners underSectlon} 164(2Xo) of the^{Act ond deoclivotionof lheir DlNs' oreset oside'} ond lhe^{2nd respondenl is direcled lo oclivotethe DlNsof lhe} pelilioners, enobling them^{lo function os Dlrectors olher lhon in} strike otl comPonies.

¶30

It is mode cleor^{thol lhis order will not precludelhe2nd} lespondenl^{from loking oppropriote oclionin occordonce wilh low} lor vlololions os envisoged^{under Seclion164(2)of the Act' glving} the soid^{ptovisionplospective effeclfrom0l} '04'2014^ondfor necessoly ocllon^{ogolnst DIN in coseof viololions of Rule l l of lhe} Rules.

¶31

It Is olso mode cleor^{thot if lhe peliiioners ore oggrieved by} lhe oclion of lhe^{respondentsin striking otf lheil componiesunder}

¶32

¶33

Section 248 of lhe Acl, lhey ore ot liberly lo ovoil ollernolive remedy under Se clion 252 of the Acl.

¶34

All lhe writ petilions ore occordingly ollowed lo lhe exlenl Indicoled obove."

¶35

ln view of the soid order doted 18.01 .2019 ond for the reosons

¶36

recorded therein, this Writ Petition is olso ollowed in terms thereof.

¶37

No costs.

¶38

Miscelloneous Pelitions, if ony pending, sholl stond closed.

¶39

,TRUE COPY//

¶40

SDLK.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,\--'-

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

'1 . The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,Union of lndia, Shastry Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad lt/arg, New Delhi.

¶44

The Registrar, Office of Registrar of Companies, ROC, 2nd Floor, Corporate Bhavan, Near Central Water Board, UST Post, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500068.

¶45

One CC to Smt. Vanga Anita, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, Asst. Solicitor General^Advocate loPUCl

¶47

Two CD Copies

Sln

'.t

HIGH COURT

DATED:0110212021

ORDER

WP.No.2010 ot 2021

"{ it s l4
(
!) 12 FEfl zOP!
o
* *

¶55

ALLOWINGTHE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

1.2

Chaluvadi Venkata Narayana Rao and 2 Others v. Union of India and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaluvadi Venkata Narayana Rao and 2 Others v. Union of India and another

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

Sri. Rajasekhar Reddy and Another Vs State of Telangana and 3 Others

Dodla Satyanarayana Prasad , Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Siva Rama Krishna Prasad Aluri Vs Union of India

Esampelli Ravindar Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Rayapaneni Maheshwar Naidu Vs Canara Bank

Gangarapu Venkataramana Vs Union of India and Another