AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is a list published by the Registrar of the Companies naming the directors of the companies
who have attracted disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short, the said Act of 2013). Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the director of various companies including M/s. Dhanrishi Trading Private Limited (in short,
the said company). It is for nonfiling of annual return of the said company for a consecutive period of three years, the petitioner is said to be
disqualified from acting as director of any company with effect from 1st November, 2016.
He further submits that Section 164(2) of the said Act of 2013 came into operation with effect from 1st April, 2014 and hence the same cannot be
made applicable for any period prior thereto and as such, the direction to disqualify the petitioner with effect from the financial years 2013-14 is not
sustainable. In support of such argument reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Arun Seth vs. Union of India, reported in
2017 SCC OnLine Cal 17624 (disposed of on 15.11.2017).
Per contra Mr. Prasad, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1&2 submits that the writ petition from which the said appeal [Arun Seth
vs. Union of India] arose has already been withdrawn. According to him, Section 164(2) of the said Act refers to non-filing of annual return for
“any†continuous period of three financial years and it need not be for a period after Section 164(2) of the said Act came into force.
Prima facie an arguable case has been made out by the petitioner and it appears that the disqualification under Section 164(2) of the said Act of 2013
would not prevent the petitioner to continue to act as director of other companies which are not in default. Accordingly, there shall be an interim order
staying the operation of the impugned list of disqualified directors published by the respondent no.2 so far as it pertains to the petitioner herein.
There shall be a further interim order allowing the petitioner to continue as director in all the companies in which the petitioner has been serving as
director and to comply with the formalities as provided under the Companies Act, 2013. The said interim orders shall continue till the end of October,
2018 or until further orders whichever is earlier.
Affidavit-in-opposition be filed by the respondents within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this
matter for further consideration in the combined monthly list of September, 2018. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.