https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363714 Challenges to director disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) and striking off of the company's name under Section 248(1) turned on alleged non-compliance with the prescribed notice procedure under Rule 3(2) and breach of natural justice. The petitioners contended that the impugned notices had serious civil consequences, while the respondents maintained that notice had been issued. Finding that the issues required adjudication, the Delhi HC granted interim protection, stayed operation of the disqualification notices until the next hearing, and directed revival of the petitioners' DIN numbers and digital signatures. en-us Fri, 06 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jul 2018 07:10:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363714 Challenges to director disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) and striking off of the company's name under Section 248(1) turned on alleged non-compliance with the prescribed notice procedure under Rule 3(2) and breach of natural justice. The petitioners contended that the impugned notices had serious civil consequences, while the respondents maintained that notice had been issued. Finding that the issues required adjudication, the Delhi HC granted interim protection, stayed operation of the disqualification notices until the next hearing, and directed revival of the petitioners' DIN numbers and digital signatures. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 06 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363714