2021 (7) TMI 1046

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f 2021 1. The present application has been filed for recall of an Order dated March 8, 2021 passed by this court in WPA No. 6697 of 2020.   2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition, for which the points raised in the recall application could not be properly represented before the court when the order under recall was passed. Learned senior counsel for the applicant contends that the limited scope of the writ petition itself, bearing WPA No. 6697 of 2021, was re-activation of the Directors Identification Number (DIN) of the writ petitioner. The premise of such contention was centered around the deactivation of the writ petitioner's DIN and the relie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r controverts such submissions and submits that the Circular dated February 10, 2012 clarifies that wherever there is management dispute, the company is required to mandatorily file the attachment relating to cause of cessation along with Form 32 with the ROC concerned, irrespective of the ground of cessation. Hence, as a result of the re-activation of the writ petitioner's DIN, the ROC could not refuse to approve, register and record or prevent the documents filed by the writ petitioner from being available in the registry for public viewing. Such portion of the order, as challenged in the present recall application, was a necessary consequence of the re-activation of the writ petitioner's DIN, it is argued. 6. It appears from the provi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as that the DIN of the writ petitioner could not be deactivated since the writ petitioner had complied with the requirements to be complied with by the directors by filing annual reports and financial statements of the concerned financial years. However, it is specifically admitted in paragraph no. 18 of the writ petition that the petitioner is taking appropriate steps in respect of the marking of the respondent no. 4, that is, the Tirupathi Properties & Investment Private Limited as having management dispute. Thus, the marking of the company as having management dispute was not the subject-matter of the writ petition but that of an appropriate challenge before a different forum. A perusal of the Master Circular dated February 10, 2012 make....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....writ petitioner due to Clause 3 of the Circular dated February 10, 2012, thereby justifying the reactivation of the DIN, the order dated June 24, 2016 passed by the ROC retained its validity in view of the subsistence of the marking of the said company as having 'management dispute'. 14. Thus, although the portion of the order under recall, by which the deactivation of the writ petitioner's DIN was set aside, was justified since there was due compliance of the liabilities of the writ petitioner as director of the company-in-question, the latter portion of the order under recall, setting aside the operation of the order dated June 24, 2016 of the ROC, was in contravention of the Circular dated February 10, 2012 and, thus, bad in law. 1....