Abhinav Singh vs Union Of India And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3083 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3083 ALL
Judgement Date : 16 May, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Abhinav Singh vs Union Of India And Another on 16 May, 2022

Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Vikram D. Chauhan




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13788 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Abhinav Singh
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Agarwal,Anshul Kumar Singhal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for petitioner and SriAkhilesh Kumar Mishra , learned counsel for respondents.

2. Petitioner is Director of a Company and has been disqualified under Section 164(2) of Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013") and also declared to have suffered consequences of such disqualification under Section 167(1) of Act, 2013. Petitioner has also challenged list of Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as "ROC") declaring petitioner as disqualified for a period of five years to be Director of Companies.

3. Learned counsel for parties, at the outset, admitted that issues raised in this writ petition have already been adjudicated by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12498 of 2019, Jai Shankar Agrahari vs. Union of India and another, decided on 16.01.2020. Operative part of judgment reads as under:

"83. We accordingly allow writ petitions partly. We also quash the list published by ROC, declaring petitioners in all these writ petitions as disqualified to be Directors of companies and debarment of being Director for a period of five years.

84. ROC, now, shall be at liberty to give a notice to petitioners to verify and establish the facts whether disqualification alleged to have been suffered by petitioners-Directors so as to attract Section 164 (2) of Act, 2013, actually exist or not. After giving them opportunity and being satisfied that such disqualification has occurred, it will proceed further in accordance with law."

4. We have also gone through the record and above judgment and find that issues raised in this writ petition are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

5. For the reasons given in the judgment dated 16.01.2020 rendered in the case of Jai Shankar Agrahari (supra) and in the same terms and directions, this writ petition is partly allowed.

Order Date :- 16.5.2022

Fahim/-