Court orders removal of petitioner's name from disqualified directors list under Companies Act 2013

The court allowed the writ petition, directing the removal of the petitioner's name from the list of disqualified directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. This decision was based on the verification of pending matters, acknowledgment of active company status, and agreement to remove the petitioner from the disqualification list by the respondents. The court ordered immediate steps for removal and publication of the orders on the website within two weeks.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disqualification of the petitioner as a Director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 due to default in submitting returns.
2. Quashing of the notices dated 6th September, 2017 and 12th September, 2017.
3. Pending proceedings between the petitioner and other directors affecting statutory compliances.
4. Activation of DIN number of the petitioner.
5. Verification and acceptance of the pendency of matters before the Original Side and criminal court.
6. Active status of all companies involved.
7. Removal of the petitioner from the list of disqualified directors.

Analysis:

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, a Director in a company, challenging the disqualification notices issued under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 due to defaults in filing returns for three financial years. The petitioner, also a Director in other companies, sought the quashing of the said notices citing difficulties and disputes with other Directors, affecting statutory compliances. The court had earlier granted interim stay orders on the disqualification notices, resulting in the activation of the petitioner's DIN number.

The court was informed that the respondents had verified and accepted the pendency of matters between the petitioner and other directors before the Original Side and criminal court. It was acknowledged that all companies, including the one in question, were still active. Consequently, the respondents agreed to remove the petitioner from the list of disqualified directors. As a result, the court directed the respondents to take immediate steps for the removal of the petitioner's name from the list and to publish the orders on the website, communicating the same to the petitioners within two weeks.

In light of the acceptance by the respondents and the active status of the companies involved, the court allowed the writ petition, granting the relief sought by directing the removal of the petitioner's name from the list of disqualified directors.

---