https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406631 The court set aside the petitioner's disqualification as a director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, due to non-filing of annual returns and balance sheets, allowing reactivation of the petitioner's DIN/DSC for compliance filing in active companies. Despite arguments of delay and latches, the court considered the continuing cause of action during disqualification, distinguishing the case from instances of unexplained delays. Citing precedents like Mukut Pathak and Anjali Bhargava, the court directed the petitioner to serve the reactivation order on ROC, Delhi and Mumbai within 10 days, resolving the petition and related applications promptly. en-us Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:34:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406631 The court set aside the petitioner's disqualification as a director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, due to non-filing of annual returns and balance sheets, allowing reactivation of the petitioner's DIN/DSC for compliance filing in active companies. Despite arguments of delay and latches, the court considered the continuing cause of action during disqualification, distinguishing the case from instances of unexplained delays. Citing precedents like Mukut Pathak and Anjali Bhargava, the court directed the petitioner to serve the reactivation order on ROC, Delhi and Mumbai within 10 days, resolving the petition and related applications promptly. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406631