2019 (11) TMI 1388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner in respect of a particular company. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that such DIN pertains to the directorship of the petitioner in several companies even other than the company-in- question regarding which the allegations were raised by the respondent no. 2 and as such, the punishment meted out was disproportionate with the allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 relies on Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and argues that no person, who is or has been a director of a company, which has committed the defaults as mentioned therein, shall be eligible to be re-appointed as a director of that company or appointed in other company for a period of five years.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respective Registrars of Companies and as such, a similar order ought to be passed in the present case as well. A perusal of Section 164(2) of the 2013 Act, makes it abundantly clear that the legislature intentionally made a distinction in the language of the first part of the said sub- section and the second part thereof; whereas sub-section (2) of Section 164 starts with the expression "no one person, who is or has been a director of a company", which has committed defaults specific therein, it culminates with the expression "shall be eligible to be re-appointed as a director of that company or appointed in other company for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do so". As such, the said section....