2021 (11) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppearing 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. 4347 of 2020, was reactivation 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 reliefs sought in the writ petition pertained to the same. It is further contended that, in terms of the Master Circular dated February 10, 2012 (Annexure-G at page 55 of the Re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ile 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 provisions of the Circular dated February 10, 2012 that Clause 2 thereof merely stipulated that wherever there is a management dispute, the company is required to mandatorily file the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd financial statements of the concerned financial years. However, it is specifically admitted in paragraph no. 16 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 makes it clear that Clause 3 thereof is independent of Clause 2, the latter merely contemplating the requirement of the company to mandatorily file the attachment relating to cause of cessatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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. 15. Since the review applicant was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition, there was no opportunity for the said applicant to point out the aforesaid flaw in the order under recall and/or any ....