Digambar Trymbakrao Mawal And ... vs Union Of India, Thr. Ministry Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6624 Bom

                                                     WP.445.21.j
                                  1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                         ...

                WRIT PETITION NO. 445/2021

1) Mr. Digambar Tryambakrao Mawal
Aged 64, occupation :Business
R/o Bungalow No.6, Tirupati Homes
Santaji Nagar, Mehkar, Tah. Mehkar
Dist. Buldana.

2) Mrs. Aruna Digambar Mawal
Aged 55 years, occu: Business
R/o Bungalow No.6, Tirupati Homes
Santaji Nagar, Mehkar Tah. Mehkar
Dist. Buldana.


3) Vijay Uttamrao Pawar
Aged about 58 years, occu: Business
R/o Shivneri Square
At & Dist. Buldana - 443301.

4) Rukhmini Agro Petrochemicals
Limited, having its office at Watukar Layout
Plot No.22, Khadan naka, Akola
Through its Director.                          ..Petitioners

           versus

1) Union of India
Through Ministry of corporate Affairs
A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan
Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi 110001.
                                                             WP.445.21.j
                                  2



2) Registrar of Companies
Off./at : Everest Building 100
Marine Drive,Mumbai-400002.                           ..Respondents

                              ...
Mr. K.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners
Ms.M.R.Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
                              ...

                              CORAM: SUNIL B.SHUKRE AND
                                     G.A. SANAP,JJ.

DATED : 13th July, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 disqualifying the petitioners as Directors of Rukhmini Agri Petrochemicals Limited is illegal, in view of the fact that subsequently, the National Company Law Tribunal by its order dated 08.12.2020 has quashed and set aside the order of the Government striking off of the name of the company from the register and therefore the order dated 31.12.2018 does not survive. We do not find it so.

3. The impugned order dated 31.12.2018 pertains to default committed by the company on account of its failure to submit WP.445.21.j

financial statements or the annual returns for companies, for period of three financial years i.e. of the years 2015 to 2017, wheres the name of the company was struck off from the register of companies with effect from 21 st September, 2018. Therefore, the order passed by the NCLT restoring the name of the company in the company's register would have no bearing whatsoever on the default committed by the company in the years 2015, 2016 and 2017.

4. We do not find that the impugned order deserves to be interfered with at the hands of this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

           [G.A. SANAP,J.]              [SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]
sahare




                                                      Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA
                                                      BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE
                                                      Location:
                                                      Signing Date:14.07.2022 11:00