Allowed

Devender Reddy Vanavasam v. Union of India

Telangana HC1 Apr 2022WP/10141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the deactivation of the petitioner's Director Identification Number (DIN) and disqualification under the Companies Act, 2013. Relying on a common order in W.P.No.5422 of 2018, the court allowed the petition to the extent indicated therein.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders disqualifying the petitioner under Section 164(2)(a) were set aside, and the Registrar was directed to activate the petitioner's DIN.

Devender Reddy Vanavasam Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10141 oF 2022

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Devender Reddy Vanavasam, S/o. Ranga Reddy Vanavasam, Age- 74 years, Occ :- Business, Fl/o. H. No. 7-1-2Bl411lG-2, Shyam Karan Raod, Ameeipet, Hyderabad, Telangana-50001 6.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Union of lndia, rep. by Principal Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,Sth floor, A Wing, Sashtry Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi'1 10001.

¶12

2 The Registrar of Companies, Telangana, 2nd floor, Corporate Bhavan, GSI Post., Tattiannaram, Nagole, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad-500068,T. S.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 pass an order or direction or any other proceeding of Writ Order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the order of the Respondents relating to the impugned list dated 2311212019 in so far as deactivating the Director ldentification Number 6777905 of the Petitioner uploaded in the website of lhe respondent No.1 as arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction contrary to the provision of the companies Act,2013 and Rule 1 1 of the Companies (Appointment and qualifications of the Directors) Rules 2014 violative of the principles of natural justice besides violating the petitloner rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article lg (t ) (g) of the Constitution of lndia. Devoid of merit and to quash the list Dt 23 12 2019 uploaded in the website of Respondent No 1 with regard to the petitioner and consequently direct the Respondents herein to permit the Petitioner to continue as Director of the Company and/or get appointed or reappointed as Director of any Company and file statutory returns i.e., annual returns and financial statements of the Companies which are active without any interference.

¶15

LA.NO:1 OF 2022

¶16

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

¶17

direct the Respondents to^{stay the disablingand restore the Director} ldentification Number 6777905^{0f Petitionerso as to enable him to continue as} Director of the companies^{and/orget appointor reappointedas Directorof any} company/ incorporate^{a new companyand file statutoryreturns i.e., annual} returns ind financial statements^{of the active companiesin whichthe petitioner} is director without any^{interferenceand earnremunerationfor his livelihood by} serving the comPanY as^Director.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRI.J.VISHNU VARDHAN}

¶19

counset for the Respondents^{: SRI.NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO (ASSGI)} The Court made the following^ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICI. G. ITADHA RANI

¶21

V.P.No.10141 of 2A22

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This \frir Petition is I'iled lor the followine relicf:

¶24

"....to issue rvrt, order or direction especiallv one in rhe n:rrure of a Vrn of M.rodamus by rlcclrring rhe order ol thc responclenrs rel:uing to the inrpugned list dar.d :1.12.1019 in so iar as deactiv;rring the Drrccro,' Idenriiicarion Nurnber 5777905 of rhe petirioner uploaderi in rhe webste o[ rhe respondent No.l as arbitrary, ill<gal, u,irhour iulisdicrion. contrary to the provisions of Ihe Cornp.rnies Acr, 101.1 :rnd Rule tl of rhe comprnies (Appointment and qualiiicrions oi rhe Dilecrors ) Rules, 2014 violative oi rhe principlcs of nlural^jusrice hcsides viol.uing the peririoner righrs guararrreed undel Anicle Ia and Anicle l9(l)(g) of the Constiturion of India, and to quxh rhe lisr datcd^21.12.2019 uploaded in thc website oi respondent No.l wirh regerd ro the petirioner and consequently direct the respon&nts hercin ro pcrmit the pettioner to continue as Director of the conrpany andlor gct appointcd or reappoinred as Director of any Company and filc staturory returns i,e., annual returns and finaniiel statcments of the Companies which are activc wirhout any intcrfcrenca and pass such orher or ordcrs as deemed fir and proper in the intcrest ofjustice."

¶25

\when the marter is taken up, it is submitted by the

¶26

learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely coverqd by the cornmon order dated 18.07.2019 passed by this Coun in \f.P.No.5422 of 2018 and batch.

¶27

Learned Standing Counsel for the Registrar of Companies (For the State of Telangana) appearing lor respondent No.2 does not dispute the aloresaid submission.

¶28

Operative ponion of the aforesaid or cler reads as under:

¶29

¶30

"lior rhe foregoing rcasons, lhe impugned ordcrs in the writ pctitions to the exten! of disqualifyurg rhc peritioners under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act and deacrivation ol rheir DlNs, ;rre set asidc, and the 2'd respondent is dircctcd to activare the DINs of the petitioners, enabling rhem ro fr.rnction as Directors other than in strike of[ courprnrcs.

¶31

It is made clear thar this order will nor prcclude the 2"r respondent from taking appropriate acti<-rn in accordrncc with lal, for violations as envisaBed under Secriol 164(2) of the Acr. giving the said provision prosp((tive clTecr froor 01.04.2014 and lbr nlccssary acti(rr agiins! DIN in casc of violations of Rule 1l of rhe Rules.

¶32

It is also nude clear rhat if rhc pcttioners are aggrieved by the action of the rcspondents in srrikilg o{f their companies undcr Section 243 oI thc Acr. rh(v are :1r lib.nv ro :rvail aheru;rtive rcmcdl' under Secrion 252 oI rhe Acr.

¶33

All the w,rt peririons arc acc,rrdingh. ,rllc,..ctl to rhc extenl indicated above."

¶34

In those circurnstances, follon'ing thc :rbove said comnlon

¶35

order and for the reasons recorded thcrein. this Wrir Petition is

¶36

also allov-ed in terms thereof.

¶37

Miscell;rneous Petitions, ii .rnv pending, sliall stand

¶38

disposed of. f'here shall be no ol"dcr i1s to costs.

SD/. K. SAILESHI

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY'

secrrkoFircrn

To L The Principal Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Corporate Affairs^,Sth- floor A Wing, Sashtry Bhavin,^{Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road'NewDelhi-110001'} Z. The R6gistrar of Companies,^{Teiangana,2nd floor C9r!-oJ?!e-thlvan,GSI} Post., Tittiannaram, Nagole,^{Bandlaguda, Hyderabad-500068'T.S.} 3 One CC to SRI.J,VISHNU VARDHAN,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

One CC to SRI.NAITIAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO(ASSGI)} IOPUC]

¶45

Two CD Copies

¶46

One spare coPY

S.A

<\ ^^.tk

HIGH COURT

GRR,J

DATED:01 10412022

(r \E STAfE
oo: 2I fi: 2il22

¶53

ORDER

¶54

WP.No.10141 of 2022

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.

¶56

/';<br>I t ),. ..]-
-r'Y\ [l r

Devender Reddy Vanavasam v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devender Reddy Vanavasam 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.Sam E-Commerce India Private Limited Vs The Union of India

M/s. S.R. Mining Industries Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri Ananthapuram Raghuvaran Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Boddu Manisha, Vs Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticulture University

Bhatta Chandrashekar Vs Board of Secondary Education

M/s.Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner