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>Court rules in favor of directors in disqualification case under Companies Act 2013</h1> <h3>Nalla Anil, Junaid Syed Ullah, Sri Algubelli Surya Prakash Reddy and another, Hari Prasad Donthu, Kartik Reddy Patlola, Mukundlal, Vijay Kumar Mamillapally Versus Union of India and another and The Ministry of Corporate Affairs</h3> Nalla Anil, Junaid Syed Ullah, Sri Algubelli Surya Prakash Reddy and another, Hari Prasad Donthu, Kartik Reddy Patlola, Mukundlal, Vijay Kumar ... Issues Involved:1. Disqualification of directors under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.2. Deactivation of Director Identification Numbers (DINs).3. Applicability of retrospective effect to Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013.4. Violation of principles of natural justice.5. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disqualification of Directors under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013:The petitioners, directors of private companies, were disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, for failing to file financial statements or annual returns for three continuous years. The court noted that Section 164(2)(a) came into force on 01.04.2014 and disqualification should be calculated from this date. The court emphasized that the analogous provision under the Companies Act, 1956, only applied to public companies, not private ones. Therefore, the disqualification of directors for periods before 01.04.2014 was deemed illegal.2. Deactivation of Director Identification Numbers (DINs):The petitioners contended that their DINs, granted for a lifetime under Rule 10(6) of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014, were deactivated without proper grounds. The court agreed, stating that Rule 11 of the Rules lists specific grounds for cancellation or deactivation of DINs, which do not include disqualification under Section 164 of the Act. Therefore, the deactivation of DINs for the alleged violations was found to be unsustainable.3. Applicability of Retrospective Effect to Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013:The court referred to General Circular No.08/14 dated 4.4.2014, which clarified that financial statements for periods before 01.04.2014 should be governed by the Companies Act, 1956, and those after by the Companies Act, 2013. The court held that applying Section 164(2)(a) retrospectively was impermissible and contrary to the circular. The judgment in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, NEW DELHI v. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED was cited, emphasizing that legislation is presumed to be prospective unless clearly stated otherwise.4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioners argued that they were not given notices before their disqualification, violating principles of natural justice. The court noted that Section 164(2)(a) is a deeming provision that does not require prior notice or hearing. The court concurred with judgments from the High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat, which held that the provision operates by law based on specified circumstances and does not violate natural justice principles.5. Availability of Alternative Remedy under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013:The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 252 of the Act. However, the court clarified that Section 252 pertains to appeals against the dissolution of companies, not the disqualification of directors or deactivation of DINs. Therefore, Section 252 was not an alternative remedy for the petitioners' grievances.Conclusion:The court set aside the impugned orders disqualifying the petitioners under Section 164(2)(a) and deactivating their DINs. The court directed the respondents to activate the DINs, enabling the petitioners to function as directors in companies other than those struck off. The court also clarified that prospective action could be taken for violations post-01.04.2014 and that petitioners could seek alternative remedies under Section 252 for company-related grievances.
TaxTMI 