https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401050 Disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 does not, by itself, justify deactivation of a Director Identification Number under the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014. The Madras High Court followed the binding Division Bench view that such deactivation is inconsistent with Section 167(1) where the director continues in office of the defaulting company. Applying that statutory position, the impugned disqualification and consequential denial of reappointment as director were not sustainable, and the petitions were allowed. en-us Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:51:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401050 Disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 does not, by itself, justify deactivation of a Director Identification Number under the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014. The Madras High Court followed the binding Division Bench view that such deactivation is inconsistent with Section 167(1) where the director continues in office of the defaulting company. Applying that statutory position, the impugned disqualification and consequential denial of reappointment as director were not sustainable, and the petitions were allowed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401050