AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1060
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Registrar of Companies (RoCs) without following the due process of law. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that although only one of the companies was alleged to have committed default, the DIN of the petitioners was deactivated in respect of the other companies, in which they were directors, as well, which was de hors the law. 4. Moreover, even in respect of the defaulting company, the DIN of the petitioners could not be deactivated without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the allegations made against them in respect of each company. 5. The disqualification of the company 'in' question took place in the year 2014, that is, prior to the 2018 Amendment of the Companies Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a hearing prior to such disqualification as a director, which would prevent such decision from being arbitrary and ex parte. In the present case, however, no hearing was given to the petitioners at all. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners cites, in this context, a division bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court rendered on January 16, 2020 (unreported) in several matters, including the Jai Shankar Agrahari vs. Union of India and another (unreported). It was held therein, inter alia, that Section 248 of the 2013 Act does not talk of disqualification which a director would suffer so as to incur disqualification under Section 164(2), read with Section 167 of the said Act. The mere fact of striking off of a company by itself cannot p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Chokhani vs. Union of India and others], dated December 3, 2019 in W.P. No.22071(W) of 2019 [Dhiraj Kumar Mantri vs. Union of India and others] and dated January 22, 2020 passed in W.P. No.700(W) of 2020 [Subhas Kumar Biswas vs. Union of India and others], along with a bunch of several other writ petitions, were cited by the petitioner. The Single Judge in the said judgments, had held that the DIN of a director could at best be disqualified in respect of the defaulting company and not in respect of other companies, of which the same person is a director. Relying on those judgments, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the present case as well, the DIN of the petitioners could not be deactivated in their entirety, thereby den....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e DIN should be deactivated. Such disqualification automatically follows for non‐compliance of the requisite filings of annual returns/financial statements by the defaulting company and could only exist during the life time of the post of director, and not for the entire life of the individual. 16. Upon considering the arguments of both sides and the legal provisions-in-question, it is evident that in the opinion of a division bench of the Allahabad High Court as well as a learned Single Judge of this court in the four judgments cited by the petitioners, the disqualification of the DIN of a director for the default of a particular company, of which he is a director, cannot disqualify the said director from acting in the said capaci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 164(2)(a) of a particular company cannot confer a right on the RoC to deactivate such DIN. In the absence of any such provision of deactivation of DIN in the 2013 Act, the mere disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of a company cannot give rise to the consequence of deactivating the DIN, for which there is no provision in the statute. In case of contravention of any of the provisions of Sections 152, 155 and 156, a punishment is provided under Section 159 of the 2013 Act. However, there is no scope of deactivation of an existing DIN on any ground whatsoever in the 2013 Act. 19. In view of the aforesaid findings, W.P. No.268 of 2019 and W.P. No.273 of 2019 are allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned orders of the RoC in th....