https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403566 The writ petition challenging the disqualification of the petitioner as a Director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 was allowed. The impugned order disqualifying the petitioner was set aside, emphasizing the need to provide directors with opportunities to rectify defaults. The judgment aligned with earlier rulings, clarifying that disqualification should not automatically lead to Director Identification Number (DIN) deactivation. Reactivation of DINs within a specified timeframe was permitted, with regulatory action based on specific inquiries into default attribution. en-us Fri, 22 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Feb 2021 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403566 The writ petition challenging the disqualification of the petitioner as a Director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 was allowed. The impugned order disqualifying the petitioner was set aside, emphasizing the need to provide directors with opportunities to rectify defaults. The judgment aligned with earlier rulings, clarifying that disqualification should not automatically lead to Director Identification Number (DIN) deactivation. Reactivation of DINs within a specified timeframe was permitted, with regulatory action based on specific inquiries into default attribution. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 22 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403566