Director disqualification and company strike-off notices faced interim protection amid notice-compliance and natural justice challenges.

Disqualification notices under Section 164(2)(a) and strike-off action under Section 248(1) raised questions on interim interference, alleged breach of natural justice, retrospective operation of the Companies Act, 2013, and compliance with notice requirements under the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Registrar of Companies) Rules, 2016. The Court treated these issues as requiring adjudication, issued notice on the petition, and granted interim protection pending further hearing. Interim stay was also granted against the impugned disqualification notices, with revival of the petitioner's DIN numbers and digital signatures pending the next stage of proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices disqualifying the petitioner as director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the strike-off action under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 warranted interim interference; and whether the statutory notice requirements under the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Registrar of Companies) Rules, 2016 had been complied with.

Analysis: The petition raised substantial questions regarding disqualification of directors and strike-off of companies, including alleged breach of natural justice, retrospective operation of the Companies Act, 2013, and compliance with the prescribed mode of notice. The Court found that the issues required adjudication and directed issue of notice, while granting interim protection pending further hearing.

Outcome: Interim stay was granted against the impugned disqualification notices, and the petitioner's DIN numbers and digital signatures were directed to be revived pending further hearing.

---