Kochi, Mar 12 (PTI) The Kerala High Court on Thursday disqualified all the officer bearers and the entire Board of Directors of the SNDP Yogam, including its general secretary Vellappally Natesan, over non-compliance of statutory requirements under the Companies Act by the organisation.

Justice T R Ravi passed the order on a batch of pleas, including one by late professor M K Sanoo, alleging irregularities in the functioning of the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam, a prominent Ezhava community organisation in Kerala.

Besides Natesan, Thushar Vellappally, M N Soman and Santhosh -- known as Arayakkandil Santhosh -- were also disqualified from the organisation's Board by the court.

While holding them as disqualified, the court declared that they were not eligible to be re-appointed as directors in view of non-compliance with the requirements of section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Section 164(2) of the Companies Act mandates that a director of a company which has not filed financial statements or annual returns for a continuous period of three financial years shall not be eligible to be reappointed to that post in any company for a period of five years from the date of default.

Natesan and the others were disqualified as directors for violation of section 164(2) of the Companies Act and for not having valid DINs as required under section 152(3) of the same Act.

The court, in its 112-page judgement, further declared that no person would be eligible to be appointed or re-appointed as director of SNDP Yogam unless they have a Director Identification Number (DIN) issued by the state government as per the Kerala Non-Trading Companies Act, 1961.

It also quashed a 2024 order of the Inspector General of Registration (IGR) holding that the directors were not disqualified for the financial years 2014-15 to 2015-16 for non-filing of returns.

The court directed the state government to take steps for appointing the required number of directors to hold office till new directors are appointed by the Yogam in the general meeting.

It also said that the government has to ensure that an election of the SNDP Yogam is held at the earliest and a proper Board of Directors is put in place.

The IGR was directed to take action under the Companies Act, which includes imposition of a fine from Rs one lakh to Rs five lakh, against the disqualified directors who continued to hold office even after knowing that their posts became vacant following their disqualification.

The petitioners, including Sanoo, who were members of the Aruvipuram SNDP Yogam, had told the court that the organisation filed returns for the years from 2006-07 to 2016-17 only in 2020.

They also contended that the immunity granted from penalties or prosecution under the Companies Fresh Start Scheme (CFSS), 2020, would not remove the disqualifications incurred by the directors.

Natesan and the others, in their defence, had contended that there was no disqualification as a delay in filing returns was condoned by the government.

They had also claimed that there was no conscious or wilful default. The court, however, rejected their contentions.

Welcoming the court order, Kerala-based businessman Gokulam Gopalan said that it was "just the beginning" as there were a lot of cases against Natesan.

Gopalan further said that since he had opposed Natesan on various issues, the SNDP Yogam general secretary had troubled him a lot.

"A proper election should be held, and a new committee should come," he said. PTI HMP ADB

Director disqualification for persistent non filing bars reappointment and requires state action and regulatory penalties. The court ruled that non filing of financial statements and annual returns for consecutive years triggered statutory disqualification under the Companies Act and barred reappointment, and that absence of valid Director Identification Numbers constituted an independent disqualification. It quashed the prior administrative finding that excused disqualification for certain years, directed the state to facilitate appointment of directors and immediate elections, and instructed the Inspector General of Registration to take action including statutory penalties; the court held that an amnesty scheme did not remove disqualification.