Court Limits Deactivation of Directors' IDs to Defaulting Companies

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the deactivation of Directors Identification Numbers (DINs) should be limited to the defaulting company and not extended to other companies where the directors were involved. The court emphasized that the Registrar of Companies cannot deactivate DINs solely based on disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) without a specific provision in the Companies Act, 2013. The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the orders deactivating the petitioners' DINs and directing the reactivation or allocation of new DIN numbers within a specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues:
Deactivation of Directors Identification Numbers (DINs) without due process of law

Analysis:
The petitioners, as directors of several companies, challenged the deactivation of their DINs by the Registrar of Companies (RoCs) without following due process. They argued that their DINs were deactivated in companies where they were directors, even though only one company was alleged to have committed default, which they contended was unlawful. The petitioners emphasized that the deactivation of their DINs in other companies, besides the defaulting one, was unjust as it did not follow the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.

The petitioners relied on Section 164 of the 2013 Act to argue that disqualification under this section was limited to the defaulting company and did not extend to other companies where the directors were involved. They highlighted the distinction between being "reappointed" in the defaulting company and being "appointed" in other companies, indicating that the disqualification should not affect their directorship in non-defaulting companies. They stressed the importance of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem, asserting that they should have been given a hearing before any disqualification as directors.

The petitioners cited various judgments, including one from the Allahabad High Court, to support their argument that the deactivation of DINs should be limited to the defaulting company and not extended to other companies where the directors were involved. They contended that the deactivation of their DINs in all companies was unjust and deprived them of their powers as directors in non-defaulting companies.

In response, the respondents referred to a Bombay High Court judgment suggesting that Section 164 could operate retrospectively based on non-filing of financial statements or annual returns by a company. They also cited a Madras High Court judgment emphasizing that a director's disqualification should lead to the deactivation of their DIN, which should only exist during their tenure as director and not indefinitely.

After considering the arguments and legal provisions, the court agreed with the petitioners' stance that the deactivation of DINs should be limited to the defaulting company and not extended to other companies. The court held that the RoC cannot deactivate DINs solely based on disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) without a specific provision in the Act for such deactivation. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the orders deactivating the petitioners' DINs and directing the reactivation or allocation of new DIN numbers within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the need for due process and adherence to legal provisions when deactivating DINs of directors, particularly concerning disqualification under the Companies Act, 2013.

---