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>Court Grants Relief in Director Disqualification Challenge</h1> <h3>Daisy Antony Versus Registrar of Companies</h3> Daisy Antony Versus Registrar of Companies - TMI Issues:Challenge to disqualification of directors under section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 based on lists published by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore. Application of principles of natural justice in disqualification process.Analysis:1. Disqualification of Directors: The judgment addresses the challenge to disqualification of directors under section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 based on lists published by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore. The court highlighted that the disqualification clause should not have a retrospective effect and that the disqualification could only be triggered after a specific timeline. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal provisions and principles of natural justice in disqualifying directors, especially in cases where the directors of private companies were not subject to disqualification under the old Act of 1956.2. Application of Principles of Natural Justice: The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in the disqualification process. It mentioned that even though there is no explicit provision mandating the observance of natural justice principles in director disqualification cases, the denial of the legal right of directors to continue in their roles necessitates the application of natural justice. The court highlighted the need for proper notice to be issued to all directors before disqualification and stressed that the disqualification process should not disproportionately affect directors who are diligently following legal requirements.3. Operative Portion of Previous Order: The judgment referred to an earlier order that addressed similar challenges related to lists published by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. It quoted the operative portion of the previous order, which emphasized the incorrect retrospective application of the disqualification clause and the necessity of adhering to specific timelines and legal provisions regarding filing of annual returns and financial statements.4. Relief Granted: The judgment concluded by granting relief to the petitioner, similar to that provided in the previous batch of cases. It set aside the impugned orders, allowing the petitioner to be re-appointed or appointed as directors in other companies without hindrance. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.In summary, the judgment addressed the challenge to director disqualification under section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act 2013, emphasizing the importance of following legal provisions, timelines, and principles of natural justice in such cases. It granted relief to the petitioner, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the petitioner to hold directorship in other companies, similar to the relief granted in previous related cases.
TaxTMI 