TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Calcutta High Court Stays Director Disqualification under Companies Act</h1> <h3>Mukul Somany & Anr. Versus Registrar of Companies, West Bengal & Anr.</h3> Mukul Somany & Anr. Versus Registrar of Companies, West Bengal & Anr. - TMI Issues: Challenge to disqualification of directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 based on non-filing of annual returns for consecutive years.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta dealt with a writ petition challenging a list published by the Registrar of companies naming directors disqualified under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioners, who were directors of various companies, argued that they were disqualified due to the non-filing of annual returns for a company that never commenced business activities. The petitioners contended that the disqualification should only apply from the financial year 2013-14 when Section 164(2) came into effect, relying on a previous judgment in the case of Arun Seth vs. Union of India. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the disqualification can be based on non-filing of annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years, regardless of when the provision came into force.The Court found that an arguable case was made out by the petitioners, indicating that the disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 should not prevent them from acting as directors in other compliant companies. Consequently, the Court issued an interim order staying the operation of the list of disqualified directors in relation to the petitioners and allowed them to continue serving as directors in other companies, subject to complying with the formalities under the Act. These interim orders were to remain in effect until the end of August 2018 or until further orders were issued, whichever came earlier.Furthermore, the Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks after the summer vacation, with a provision for the petitioners to respond within two weeks thereafter. The matter was scheduled for further consideration in the combined monthly list of July 2018, and the parties were to receive a copy of the order upon completion of all formalities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
