Court Decision on Fresh Start Scheme & DIN Deactivation

The court dismissed the petitioners' arguments regarding the Fresh Start Scheme and the need for a prior hearing. It upheld the automatic nature of disqualification under Sections 164(2) and 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. However, it ruled in favor of the petitioners on the issue of Director Identification Number (DIN) deactivation, stating that such deactivation is not automatic and must be reconsidered, subject to compliance with filing requirements. The writ petition was allowed to this limited extent, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of benefit under the "Company’s Fresh Start Scheme of 2020".
2. Lack of prior hearing before disqualification, violating principles of Natural Justice.
3. Authority of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) to deactivate Director Identification Numbers (DIN).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Benefit under the "Company’s Fresh Start Scheme of 2020":
The petitioners argued that they were not allowed to avail the benefits of the “Company’s Fresh Start Scheme of 2020” despite applying by letter dated 11th November 2020. The respondents countered that the scheme was valid only until 31st December 2020, and a subsequent circular dated 15th January 2021 clarified that the scheme was no longer applicable. The court found the petitioners' argument unconvincing, noting that the scheme's expiration was clear and well-documented.

2. Lack of Prior Hearing Before Disqualification:
The petitioners contended that they were not afforded a prior hearing before their disqualification, thus violating the principles of Natural Justice. However, the court referred to previous judgments, including Naresh Kumar Poddar and Gautam Mehra, which held that disqualification under Section 164(2) and 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, is automatic and does not require prior notice or hearing. The court emphasized that the language and purpose of these provisions are clear, providing for automatic consequences without exceptions, and thus, the principles of Natural Justice do not apply.

3. Authority of the ROC to Deactivate DIN:
The petitioners challenged the ROC's authority to deactivate their DINs, arguing that such deactivation is not automatic. The court cited the Yashodhara Shroff decision, which clarified that while directors of a defaulting company must vacate their positions in other companies, they can continue in the defaulting company. Therefore, the deactivation of DIN is not automatic and must be reconsidered. The court held that the DINs of the petitioners should be revived, provided the company filed Form DIR-9 within the prescribed or extended time. However, these DINs cannot be used to act as directors in any other company.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitioners' arguments regarding the Fresh Start Scheme and the need for prior hearing. It upheld the automatic nature of disqualification under Sections 164(2) and 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, emphasizing the provisions' intent to ensure good governance and protect shareholders' interests. However, it ruled in favor of the petitioners on the issue of DIN deactivation, stating that such deactivation is not automatic and must be reconsidered, subject to compliance with filing requirements. The writ petition was allowed to this limited extent, with no order as to costs.

---