https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400408 A Division Bench ruling under Sections 164(2)(a) and 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the 2014 Rules, held that the Registrar of Companies has no power to deactivate a Director Identification Number merely because a director is disqualified. The court reasoned that such deactivation is inconsistent with the statutory scheme, because a continuing director of the defaulting company must retain the DIN to regularise filings and cure the default. Applying that binding precedent, the Madras HC allowed the petitions and held that the disqualification-related action could not stand against the petitioners. en-us Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2020 09:37:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400408 A Division Bench ruling under Sections 164(2)(a) and 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the 2014 Rules, held that the Registrar of Companies has no power to deactivate a Director Identification Number merely because a director is disqualified. The court reasoned that such deactivation is inconsistent with the statutory scheme, because a continuing director of the defaulting company must retain the DIN to regularise filings and cure the default. Applying that binding precedent, the Madras HC allowed the petitions and held that the disqualification-related action could not stand against the petitioners. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400408