Chattisgarh High Court
Surendra Rathi vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WPC No. 4026 of 2019
Vineet Singh Versus Union Of India & Ors.
WPC No. 3598 of 2019, WPC NO. 3689 of 2019
26/08/2021 Shri Palash Tiwari, Shri A.K. Yadav and Shri Atanu Ghosh,
Counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri Ramamkant Mishra and Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Counsel for
the respondents.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the very
disqualification is under challenge in this petition and as the
Companies Act 2013 came into force on 01.04.2014, non-filing of
return for 3 consecutive years would be from 2014-2015, 2015-2016 &
2016-2017, however, the respondents have disqualified the petitioners
for the reason that from November, 2016 the returns have not been
filed. He submits that the order of Bombay High Court which has been
stayed by the Supreme Court would show that the order was passed
against final judgment and in that case, the Condonation of Delay
Scheme2018 which was allowed by the Bombay High Court was
primarily under challenge. He further referred to the order of Division
Bench passed by the Delhi High Court. He also refers to the orders
passed by this Court in WPC No.95 of 2019 & WPC No.530 of 2019
and would submit that in similar matters, the DINs were revived by
interim orders.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that before the
Bombay High Court, the cancellation of DIN and Condonation of Delay
Scheme was also under challenge and that having been allowed, the
same order has been challenged by the Union of India whereas the
Supreme Court has stayed the order of the Bombay High Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents are directed to file reply in
WPC NO. 3689 of 2019.
Here the primary question about the disqualification is under
challenge on the ground that when the Act came into force in 2014 by
retrospective effect even applying the same, the alleged non-filing of
the return or annual account for the November, 2016 would not take
place. It is stated that even if the filing of returns of the 3 consecutive
financial years i.e., 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 has been
stated to have commenced from 2014, the application of issue has to
be looked into.
It appears that final order has been passed by the Division
Bench of Bombay High Court.
Taking into consideration the issue involved, I am inclined to
grant interim relief.
Accordingly, there shall be stay of the impugned notice where
by the petitioners have been declared disqualified as Directors under
Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The DIN number as well
as digital signature of the petitioners shall be revived forthwith.
Cc as per rules.
Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri)
Jyoti Judge
