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>Appeals allowed to reinstate directors' DINs, ROC must prove defaults, reactivation within 30 days</h1> <h3>Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan, Kamal Aneesmohamed, Sathish Kumar Gopal, Govindasamy Balasubramaniam, Paari Senthil Kumar, Paari Dhanalakshmi, Versus Union of India, The Registrar of Companies Tamil Nadu, Chennai,</h3> Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan, Kamal Aneesmohamed, Sathish Kumar Gopal, Govindasamy Balasubramaniam, Paari Senthil Kumar, Paari Dhanalakshmi, ... Issues Involved:1. Requirement of prior notice before disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.2. Power of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) to deactivate Director Identification Numbers (DINs) of disqualified directors.3. Attribution of default to specific directors under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.Detailed Analysis:1. Requirement of Prior Notice Before Disqualification:Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 (CA 2013) outlines the grounds for disqualification of directors. Section 164(1) lists individual-specific disqualifications, while Section 164(2) addresses disqualifications due to company defaults. The appellants argued that prior notice is implicit under Section 164(2), citing the principles of natural justice and previous court rulings, including Bhagavan Das Dhananjaya Das v. Union of India, which emphasized the necessity of notice before disqualification. The court agreed, stating that disqualification under Section 164(2) involves two stages: determining the company's default and attributing this default to specific directors. This attribution requires an enquiry, making prior notice essential.2. Power of the ROC to Deactivate DINs:The appellants contended that the ROC lacks the authority to deactivate DINs under CA 2013 and the associated rules. They referred to Rule 11 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014 (AQD Rules), which specifies the conditions for DIN deactivation, none of which include disqualification under Section 164(2). The court concurred, noting that Rule 11 does not empower the ROC to deactivate DINs for disqualification under Section 164(2). Additionally, the court highlighted that deactivating DINs would contradict Section 164(2) read with Section 167(1) of CA 2013, as disqualified directors continue to hold office in the defaulting company and need their DINs to rectify defaults.3. Attribution of Default to Specific Directors:Section 164(2) of CA 2013 disqualifies directors of companies that fail to file financial statements or annual returns for three consecutive financial years. The court examined Rule 14 of the AQD Rules, which requires companies to file Form DIR-9 listing directors during the default period. If not filed, Section 2(60) of CA 2013 applies, defining 'officers in default.' The court emphasized that attributing default to specific directors necessitates an enquiry, as the criteria for such attribution are not explicitly defined in the statute or rules. The court provided several plausible criteria for determining responsible directors, illustrating the complexity and necessity of prior notice and enquiry.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned order and quashing the ROC's publication of the disqualified directors' list and DIN deactivation. The court ordered the reactivation of the appellants' DINs within 30 days and clarified that the ROC could initiate disqualification actions subject to an enquiry to attribute defaults to specific directors.
TaxTMI 