TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal Orders Director's DIN Reactivation; Company Gets 30 Days to Comply, ROC May Impose Fines for Violations.</h1> The Tribunal ordered the reactivation of the director's DIN, enabling the company to comply with statutory obligations. The ROC was instructed to ... Deactivation of DIN of the Directors - Filing of defaulted Annual Returns and Financial Statements of the Appellant Company - Sections 164 and 167 of Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel quoted the decision in Mukut Pathak & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors [2019 (11) TMI 319 - DELHI HIGH COURT] a settled case law of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to show that this Bench have power to order activation of DIN of the Directors of the Appellant Company. As regards the activation of DIN of the Director, having satisfied with the submissions made by the Appellant, this Tribunal come to the conclusion that it would be just and proper to order reactivation of the DIN of the Director, namely, Mr. P. I. Stanley to enable the Applicant company to file the Annual Returns and Financial Statements or other applications contemplated under the Companies Act, 2013. The RoC is directed to, reactivate the DIN of the Director forthwith, by collecting fine/ penalty, if any, for the lapse of the Director. The Company is directed to file all the statutory document(s) along with prescribed fees/additional fee/fine as decided by Registrar of Companies within 30 days from the date on which the DIN of the director is reactivated - the Registrar of Companies, Kochi is directed to, update their system records with correct status in respect of the Applicant Company and its Directors. Application disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies.2. Compliance with statutory requirements post-restoration.3. Disqualification and reactivation of Director Identification Numbers (DIN).4. Legal provisions and interpretations relevant to disqualification and reactivation of DIN.5. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the application before the Tribunal.Detailed Analysis:1. Restoration of the Company's Name:The Tribunal had previously allowed the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, with specific directions for compliance. The company was directed to file all statutory documents and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 to the Central Government. The restoration was conditional upon these compliances.2. Compliance with Statutory Requirements Post-Restoration:The applicant submitted that they had complied with the Tribunal's directions by filing the necessary declarations and paying the costs. However, the ROC did not allow the filing of defaulted Annual Returns and Financial Statements due to the disqualification of the director, P. I. Stanley, whose DIN was not reactivated.3. Disqualification and Reactivation of Director Identification Numbers (DIN):The ROC argued that under Section 164(2)(a) read with Section 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, the directors were disqualified due to non-filing of financial statements for three consecutive years. Consequently, their DINs could not be reactivated. The ROC suggested that the applicant should approach the High Court for relief.4. Legal Provisions and Interpretations Relevant to Disqualification and Reactivation of DIN:The Tribunal examined Sections 164(2) and 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, which outline the disqualification criteria and the vacation of office for directors. The Tribunal also considered precedents, including the case of Mukut Pathak Vs Union of India, to determine its authority to order the reactivation of DINs. The Tribunal noted that its orders could be enforced as decrees under Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.5. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of the Application Before the Tribunal:The ROC contended that the application was not maintainable and that the applicant should seek relief from the High Court. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to enforce its orders and that approaching the High Court would lead to unnecessary litigation and expenses.Findings and Order:The Tribunal concluded that it had the authority to order the reactivation of the DIN of the director, P. I. Stanley, to enable the company to comply with statutory requirements. The ROC was directed to reactivate the DIN by collecting any applicable fines or penalties. The company was given 30 days to file all required documents post-reactivation. The order was confined to the specific violations leading to the deactivation of the DIN and did not preclude the ROC from taking action for other violations.Conclusion:The Tribunal disposed of the application by ordering the reactivation of the DIN and directing the ROC to update its records accordingly. The decision emphasized the Tribunal's role in ensuring compliance with statutory requirements while balancing the need to avoid unnecessary litigation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
