Kerala High Court
Prof. M.K.Sanoo vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 5 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY,THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/15TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.19266 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONER:
PROF. M.K.SANOO, AGED 93 YEARS,
S/O. MANGALATH M.C.KESAVAN,
'SANDHYA', KARIKKAMURI,
KOCHI - 682 011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
EX-MAYOR R. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD,
NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
3 ARUVIPURAM SREE NARAYANA DHARMA
PARIPALANA YOGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY, V.K. NATESAN,
S/O. KESAVAN, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.
WPC No.19266/2020
:2:
4 V.K.NATESAN, S/O. KESAVAN,
GENERAL SECRETARY, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001., VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE,
KANCHUKULANGARA P. O., CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 582.
5 DR. M.N.SOMAN, PRESIDENT, SNDP YOGAM HEAD
OFFICE, P. B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.
6 THUSHAR, S/O. V. K. NATESAN,
VICE PRESIDENT, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001., VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE,
KANCHUKULANGARA P. O., CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 582.
7 SANTHOSH @ ARAYAKKANDIL SANTHOSH,
DEVASWOM SECRETARY, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P. B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.
R1-R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN
R3-R7 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 05-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.19266/2020
:3:
[CR]
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.19266 of 2020
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, a retired Professor, Writer and
Critic, who has authored large number of literary works, has
filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a social worker and is
a member of the Aruvippuram Sree Narayana Dharma
Paripalana Yogam. The petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:-
"(i) Declare that respondents 4 to 7 are
disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies
Act, 2013 to act as the Directors/office bearers of
respondent No.3 Yogam;
(ii) Pass an order restraining respondent
Nos.4 to 7 from functioning as Directors of respondent
No.3 Yogam.
(iii) Appoint an Administrator to manage the
day to day activities of respondent No.3 Yogam and to
conduct election to its Board of Directors/office
WPC No.19266/2020
bearers in accordance with law and under the
supervision of this Hon'ble Court;
(iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction commanding respondent
No.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 after
hearing the petitioner within a time frame as may be
fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
2. The petitioner states that the 3 rd respondent-
Aruvippuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Yogam') was registered under
the Travancore Regulation No.1 of 1063 as an Association.
The Kerala Non-trading Companies Act, 1961 came into
effect from 01.03.1962 and the Yogam being an existing
company came under the ambit of the Act, 1961. The
Yogam is also deemed to be a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 in view of Sections 3 to 5 of the Act,
1961. Consequent to the repeal of the Companies Act, 1956
and enactment of the Companies Act, 2013, the Act, 2013
would apply to the Yogam, as held by this Court in the
judgment in K. Manoj @ Manoj Kadakampally and others
v. Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam and others
[2020 (5) KLT 266]. The competent authority under the
WPC No.19266/2020
Kerala Non-trading Companies Act, 1961 is the 2 nd
respondent-Inspector General of Registration.
3. The complaint of the petitioner is that the Yogam
did not file annual returns from 2006 onwards. The 1 st
respondent-State of Kerala appointed an officer to adjudicate
the matter as per Ext.P2. However, no effective steps were
taken by the adjudicator. Ext.P3 information would show that
annual returns have not been filed by the Yogam till that
date.
4. The petitioner sent Ext.P4 representation to the 1 st
respondent pointing out that in view of Section 164(2) of the
Companies Act, 2013, the Directors of the Yogam stand
disqualified. According to the petitioner, the Yogam and
persons who claim to be its Directors are taking advantage of
absence of a proper and effective regulatory frame work.
The petitioner urged that respondents 4 to 7, who are
General Secretary, President, Vice President and Devaswom
Secretary of the Yogam, stand disqualified for being
Directors of the Yogam since the year 2017. But, they are
WPC No.19266/2020
reappointed as Directors from time to time.
5. The petitioner further alleged that the Yogam
administers more than 40 Schools and 4 Colleges and
respondents 4 to 7 are making appointments to various posts
in the Schools and Colleges illegally. They are making
amendments to the bye-laws without prior sanction of the
Government. Local Branches and Unions of the Yogam are
appointed and dismissed indiscriminately to stiffle dissent.
As the Directors of the Yogam are disqualified, an
Administrator has to be appointed for day to day functions
and to conduct elections in accordance with law.
6. Respondents 3 to 7 filed a counter affidavit and
defended the writ petition. Respondents 3 to 7 stated that
Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 only prescribes
that a person who is or has been a Director of a Company,
which has not filed financial statements or annual returns for
a continuous period of three financial years, is not eligible to
be reappointed as a Director of the Company or appointed as
Directors of any other Company for 5 years from the date of
WPC No.19266/2020
default. Therefore, attribution of disqualification to
respondents 4 to 7 can be done only if the 3 rd respondent
has not filed financial statement and annual returns for a
continuous period of 3 financial years.
7. Respondents 3 to 7 contended that Section 164
does not contemplate any application being made to the
Company Court either to declare that the office has been
vacated or to declare that the office has not been vacated.
No application can be entertained by the Company Court or
High Court. The remedy, if any, of the petitioner is through
civil court or by arbitration.
8. Respondents 3 to 7 refuted the allegation that the
3rd respondent has not filed annual returns in all these years.
Financial statements for the years 2006-'07 to 2017-'18 were
submitted in time. The 2nd respondent informed that they
could not record the returns in registry due to want of original
records which were in the office of Registrar of Companies.
The annual returns submitted by the 3 rd respondent were not
processed due to certain litigations. The delay caused has
WPC No.19266/2020
been condoned by the Government of Kerala and the 2 nd
respondent has permitted the 3rd respondent to file Annual
Returns remitting requisite fee.
9. Respondents 3 to 7 further stated that the 3 rd
respondent filed a request for availing the benefit of the
Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020 (CFSS, 2020) and for
issuance of Immunity Certificate under the Scheme. The
Deputy Inspector General (Licence) and Non-trading
Company Registrar, Kerala has granted Ext.R3(o) Certificate
to the 3rd respondent, granting immunity from prosecution or
imposition of penalty under the Act subject to the provisions
contained in the CFSS, 2020. The writ petition is therefore
without any merit and is liable to be dismissed, contended
respondents 3 to 7.
10. The 2nd respondent-Inspector General of
Registration filed counter affidavit. The 2 nd respondent stated
that the Registrar of Non-trading Company, the Deputy
Inspector General of Registration (Licensing) issued letter
dated 30.12.2019 to the General Secretary of the Yogam and
WPC No.19266/2020
required to submit documents for filing the annual returns
from 2006-'07 to 2016-'17. Accordingly, the Yogam
produced required documents. There was lack of clarity as
to whether the Non-trading Company Registrar has the
power to consider applications under the CFSS, 2020.
Ultimately, the Registrar of Non-trading Company issued an
adjudication order dated 24.09.2020 imposing a penalty of
₹1 lakh and filing fees of ₹6,600/- for receiving the annual
returns of the Yogam.
11. On receipt of complaints from the petitioner, a
letter was sent to the Government of India for clarification as
to whether CFSS, 2020 is applicable to the Yogam. Now, the
Government has informed that the CFSS, 2020 is applicable
to Non-trading Companies also. Accordingly, the application
submitted by the Yogam was considered and Immunity
Certificate was issued to the Yogam after receiving requisite
fees. The 2nd respondent submitted that the representation
submitted by the petitioner will be considered after receipt of
reply from the Government.
WPC No.19266/2020
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
it has been held by this Court in K. Manoj @ Manoj
Kadakampally and others (supra) that the provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013 are applicable to the Companies
governed by the Kerala Non-trading Companies Act, 1961.
From the said judgment, it is clear that the regulatory law
applicable to the Yogam is the Companies Act, 2013. The
Yogam has not filed annual statement or Balance Sheet
since the year 2006 before the Inspector General of
Registration, who is the competent authority. The fact that
mandatory filing of annual statements and balance sheets
was not done in time, is admitted by the Government, as is
evident from Ext.P2, Ext.P3 and Ext.R3(h). The documents
were filed before the competent authority only on
15.06.2020.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that
Section 164(2)(a) disqualifies a person as Director if
financial statements or annual returns are not filed for a
WPC No.19266/2020
continuous period of three years. Such Directors cannot be
reappointed for a period of five years. Section 167 of the
Companies Act, 2013 mandates that the office of a Director
shall become vacant in case he incurs any of the
disqualifications specified in Section 164. In view of the
continued default in filing the mandatory returns,
respondents 3 to 7 should be deemed to have vacated office
of the Directors by operation of Section 164(2) of the
Companies Act read with Section 167 and they are
disqualified from seeking re-election. Learned counsel for
the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in W.P.(C) No.9088/2018 and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P.(C) No.13616/2018, in
support of his contentions.
14. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7,
on the other hand, contested the maintainability of the writ
petition itself. The learned counsel pointed out that Section
164(2) prohibits reappointment of certain Directors.
Directors of a company who have defaulted in filing returns
WPC No.19266/2020
for a continuous period of three years, are disqualified for
appointment as Directors in other Companies. As far as the
defaulted company is concerned, the Directors shall continue
till new Directors assume office as per the bye-laws of the
company.
15. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7,
placing reliance on Exts.R3(a) to R3(g), argued that the
Yogam was sending annual returns every year. The
competent authority could not act on such filings due to non-
availability of records, which were lying with the Registrar of
Companies under the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore,
when the question whether there is any default on the part of
the Yogam or its Directors, is itself in dispute, there cannot
be any automatic disqualification of the Directors of the
Yogam under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013.
16. I have heard Sri. P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Deepa Narayanan, learned
Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and
Sri. A.N. Rajan Babu, learned counsel appearing for
WPC No.19266/2020
respondents 3 to 7.
17. The questions arising for consideration in this writ
petition are whether the writ petition is maintainable, whether
the Directors of the Yogam have defaulted in filing annual
returns and whether there is an automatic disqualification of
the Directors of the Yogam for re-appointment as the
Directors of the Yogam.
18. Before dealing with the issues, it would be
beneficial to read Sections 152(3), 152(4), 164 and 167 of
the Companies Act, 2013 which are as follows:-
"152. Appointment of Directors: (1) x x x x x
(2) x x x x x x x x x x x
(3) No person shall be appointed as a director of a
company unless he has been allotted the Director
Identification Number under section 154.
(4) Every person proposed to be appointed as a
director by the company in general meeting or
otherwise, shall furnish his Director Identification
Number and a declaration that he is not disqualified to
become a director under this Act.
164. Disqualification for appointment of director -
(1) A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a
director of a company, if -
(a) he is of unsound mind and stands so
declared by a competent court;
(b) he is an undischarged insolvent;
WPC No.19266/2020
(c) he has applied to be adjudicated as an
insolvent and his application is pending;
(d) he has been convicted by a court or any
offence, whether involving moral, turpitude or
otherwise, and sentenced in respect thereof to
imprisonment for not less than six months and a
period of five years has not elapsed from the date of
expiry of the sentence:
Provided that if a person has been convicted of
any offence and sentenced in respect thereof to
imprisonment for a period of seven years or more, he
shall not be eligible to be appointed as a director in
any company;
(e) an order disqualifying him for appointment
as a director has been passed by a court or Tribunal
and the order is in force;
(f) he has not paid any calls in respect of any
shares of the company held by him, whether alone or
jointly with others, and six months have elapsed from
the last day fixed for the payment of the call;
(g) he has been convicted for the offence
dealing with related party transactions under section
188 at any time during the last preceding five years;
or
(h) he has not complied with sub-section (3) of
section 152.
(2) No person who is or has been a director of a
company which -
(a) has not filed financial statements or annual
returns for any continuous period of three financial
years; or
(b) has failed to repay the deposits accepted by
it or pay interest thereon or to redeem any debentures
on the due date or pay interest due thereon or pay
any dividend declared and such failure to pay of
redeem continues for one year or more,
shall be eligible to be re-appointed as a director of
that company or appointed in other company for a
period of five years from the date on which the said
WPC No.19266/2020
company fails to do so.
(3) A private company may by its articles provide for
any disqualifications for appointment as a director in
addition to those specified in sub-sections (1) and (2):
Provided that the disqualifications referred to in
clauses (d), (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) shall not
take effect -
(i) for thirty days from the date of conviction or
order of disqualification;
(ii) where an appeal or petition is preferred
within thirty days as aforesaid against the conviction
resulting in sentence or order, until expiry of seven
days from the date on which such appeal or petition is
disposed of; or
(iii) where any further appeal or petition is
preferred against order or sentence within seven
days, until such further appeal or petition is disposed
[of].
167. Vacation of office of director.-- (1) The office
of a director shall become vacant in case -
(a) he incurs any of the disqualifications
specified in section 164;
(b) he absents himself from all the meetings of
the Board of Directors held during a period of twelve
months with or without seeking leave of absence of
the Board;
(c) he acts in contravention of the provisions
of section 184 relating to entering into contracts or
arrangements in which he is directly or indirectly
interested;
(d) he fails to disclose his interest in any
contract or arrangement in which he is directly or
indirectly interested, in contravention of the provisions
of section 184;
(e) he becomes disqualified by an order of a
court or the Tribunal;
(f) he is convicted by a court of any offence,
whether involving moral turpitude or otherwise and
WPC No.19266/2020
sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not
less than six months:
Provided that the office shall be vacated by the
director even if he has filed an appeal against the
order of such court;
(g) he is removed in pursuance of the
provisions of this Act;
(h) he, having been appointed a director by
virtue of his holding any office or other employment in
the holding, subsidiary or associate company, ceases
to hold such office or other employment in that
company.
(2) If a person, functions as a director even when he
knows that the office of director held by him has
become vacant on account of any of the
disqualifications specified in sub-section (1), he shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be
less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to
five lakh rupees, or with both.
(3) Where all the directors of a company vacate their
offices under any of the disqualifications specified in
sub-section (1), the promoter or, in his absence, the
Central Government shall appoint the required
number of directors who shall hold office till the
directors are appointed by the company in the general
meeting.
(4) A private company may, by its articles, provide
any other ground for the vacation of the office of a
director in addition to those specified in sub-section
(1)."
It is evident that no person shall be appointed as a Director
of a company unless he has been allotted the Director
Identification Number under Section 154 and every person
WPC No.19266/2020
proposed to be appointed as a Director by the Company,
shall furnish his Director Identification Number and a
declaration that he is not disqualified to become a Director
under the Act, 2013.
19. Section 164(2) makes it clear that no person who
is or has been a Director of a company which has not filed
financial statements or annual returns for any continuous
period of three financial years shall be eligible to be
reappointed as Directors of that company for a period of five
years from the date on which the said company fails to do so.
Section 167 mandates that the office of a Director shall
become vacant in case a Director incurs any of the
disqualifications specified in Section 164.
20. The Companies Act, 2013 does not provide for
any administrative procedure for disqualification of Directors
by operation of Section 164(2). Respondents 3 to 7 also
admit that no application to declare that the office has been
vacated, can be entertained by the Company Court.
According to respondents 3 to 7, the remedy available is
WPC No.19266/2020
through civil court. The disqualification for reappointment
prescribed by Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 is
for a period of five years. As initiation of civil proceedings
and final culmination of the proceedings after appeals
provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ordinarily
takes more than five years, this Court finds that civil remedy
is not an efficacious alternate remedy and consequently a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will
be maintainable in appropriate cases.
21. Now the question is whether the Directors of the
3rd respondent-Yogam have defaulted in filing annual returns
and are disqualified to hold office by operation of Section
164(2) of the Companies Act. Section 164(2)(a) makes it
clear that a Director of a company which has not filed
financial statements or annual returns for any continuous
period of three financial years shall not be eligible to be
reappointed as a Director of that company or appointed in
other company, for a period of five years from the date on
which the said company fails to do so. Section 167(1)(a)
WPC No.19266/2020
mandates that the office of a Director shall become vacant in
case he incurs any of the disqualifications specified in
Section 164. It is evident from the said provisions that
disqualification of such Directors occurs by operation of law
and is automatic and an administrative decision is not
required in that regard.
22. Then the question will be whether any of the
Directors of the 3rd respondent-Yogam have incurred the
disqualification due to non-filing of annual returns/financial
statements for a continuous period of three years. It is
evident from the pleadings that the annual returns of the
Yogam from the year 2006-'07 to 2016-'17 were filed paying
the penalty imposed by the Non-trading Company Registrar,
Kerala only after 24.09.2020. The amended provisions of the
Companies Act came into force with effect from 12.09.2013.
Therefore, if financial statements/annual returns for the years
2013-'14, 2014-'15 and 2015-'16 were not filed, such of the
Directors who were in office during the period will be
disqualified for reappointment as Directors in the Yogam for
WPC No.19266/2020
the next five years.
23. The pleadings in the writ petition would show that
the Secretary of the Yogam sought to file annual returns for
the year 2006-'07 on 17.02.2009 and the Non-trading
Company Registrar as per Ext.R3(c) informed the Yogam
that requisite registers were not available with his office and
the Non-trading Company Registrar has requested the
Registrar of Companies, Cochin to make available the
registers of the Yogam.
24. Ext.R3(d) letter dated 11.10.2010 of the Assistant
Registrar of Companies, Kerala would show that the
Assistant Registrar has required the Yogam to file returns
before the office of the Inspector General of Registration,
Trivandrum as per the procedure laid down under the Kerala
Non-trading Companies Act, 1961.
25. Ext.R3(e) order dated 09.02.2009 of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi would show that the Central Government
on 23.08.2005 found that the appropriate authority in respect
of the Yogam would be the State Government under the
WPC No.19266/2020
Kerala Non-trading Companies Act, 1961 and the Hon'ble
high Court of Delhi has set aside the said order and directed
the Central Government to decide the issue afresh after
giving appropriate notice to the parties.
26. Ext.R3(f) letter dated 18.10.2011 of the Deputy
Registrar of Companies, Kerala would show that the entire
records of the Yogam have been transferred to the Inspector
General of Registration in January, 2009. Ext.R3(g) letter
dated 18.12.2012 of the 4th respondent would show that
balance sheet and income and expenditure account along
with audit report and annual report was forwarded to the
Registrar of Non-trading Corporation on 18.12.2012.
Therefore, it is evident that the Yogam had made some
attempts to file annual returns/financial statements during the
years 2009 to 2012. However, there are no materials to
indicate that the Directors of the Yogam took any effective
steps to file annual returns/financial statements during the
period from 2013-'14 to 2015-'16. Even if such attempts
were made unsuccessfully, that my not be sufficient to avert
WPC No.19266/2020
disqualification because the disqualification under Section
164(2) is by operation of law and automatic. Since the
Yogam has not filed annual returns/financial statements from
the year 2013-'14 to 2015-'16 for a continuous period of
three years, the Directors who were holding the office during
the period would be disqualified for reappointment for the
next five years.
27. Now, the issue to be considered is whether
respondents 4 to 7 in the writ petition are liable to be
declared as having incurred the disqualification under
Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, by this Court.
Going through the pleadings in the writ petition, I find that
there is no positive assertion anywhere in the writ petition
that respondents 4 to 7 were Directors of the Company
during the three consecutive years since 2013-'14, except in
the case of the 4th respondent. A reference with regard to
the tenure of the 4th respondent can be found only in Ext.P4
complaint preferred by the petitioner before the Inspector
General of Registration, which is as follows:-
WPC No.19266/2020
"The present General Secretary of the SNDP
Yogam took charge in 1997. From that year onwards,
he is not functioning in accordance with the provisions
of the law, rules and other circulars governing in the
Companies Act."
The pleadings in the writ petition leaves this Court to
presume that the 4th respondent has been the General
Secretary of the Yogam during the years 2013-'14 to
2015-'16. As regards respondents 5 to 7, there is no
pleading in the writ petition asserting that they were Directors
of the Company during the said period.
28. Disqualification of Directors for reappointment or
appointment in any Company is a serious matter affecting
rights of Directors to hold office of the Director not only in the
defaulted company but also in other companies. Therefore,
it will not be advisable and would indeed be improper to
declare that respondents 4 to 7 are disqualified for
reappointment in the Yogam, in view of Section 164(2) of the
Companies Act, 2013 in the absence of sufficient pleadings.
Furthermore, there are other Directors of the Yogam also, as
WPC No.19266/2020
is evident from the cause title shown in Ext.P4 complaint,
who are not parties to this writ petition, who may also be
disqualified for reappointment as Directors in the Yogam. In
the circumstances, this Court finds that it will not be
appropriate to declare that respondents 4 to 7 are
disqualified to be reappointed as Directors of Yogam, in this
writ petition.
29. However, this Court finds that the allegations
made by the petitioner have strong legal footing and the
petitioner had brought this issue before the competent
authority. The issue therefore, has to be examined by the
competent authority. The petitioner has approached the 2 nd
respondent filing Ext.P4 petition seeking to remove the
disqualified Directors of the Yogam, including respondents 4
to 7, in the light of Section 164(2) of the Companies Act,
2013.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed
of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and take a
decision on Ext.P4 petition submitted by the writ petitioner,
WPC No.19266/2020
within a period of three months. The petitioner as well as the
Directors of the 3rd respondent-Yogam who are likely to be
affected by the decision on Ext.P4, shall be given opportunity
of hearing before a final decision is taken. The parties may
also be permitted to produce additional documents and to
make further pleadings, if they so desire.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/28.12.2020
WPC No.19266/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION DATED 15.05.1903 OF THE
YOGAM.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)
NO.989/2019/TAXES DATED 26.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION OBTAINED
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
2005, DATED 10.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 18.08.2020 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER WITH FILE
NO.IGR/3773/2020-L3 DATED 25.08.2020
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.04.2015
ISSUED BY THE COMPANY LAW BOARD,
CHENNAI BENCH.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.01.2020 IN CRP NO.248 OF 2019, K.
MANOJ @ MANOJ KADAKAMPALLY AND OTHERS
V. SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA
YOGAM AND OTHERS.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO-
A4/234/2020-21, DATED 27.10.2020
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF LETTE DATED 28.9.2020
SENT TO THE IG REGISTRATION
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE CAVEAT DATED
2/10/2020 FILED BEFORE THE NATIONAL
COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOCHI
WPC No.19266/2020
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
23/8/2005 OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
COMPANY AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI
EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.9-
995/S397/STA(p)11882/08 DATED
21/8/2008
EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
2/3/2009
EXHIBIT R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P.C.2/09-
995/6068 DATED 11/10/2010 SENT BY
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
09/02/2009 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
NEW DELHI IN WPC 22699-22701/2005.
EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
PCI/9945/2011 DATED 18/10/2011.
EXHIBIT R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
AAO/2725/2012 DATED 18/12/2012.
EXHIBIT R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30/12/2019 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R3(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
IGR/338/2018/L3 DATED 24/09/2020
ISSUED BY DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL.
EXHIBIT R3(J) TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN REMITTING
THE FILING FEES WITH TREASURY.
EXHIBIT R3(K) TRUE COPY OF THE CFSS 2020 SCHEME
DATED 30/03/2020.
EXHIBIT R3(L) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.
NO.02/01/2020-CL-Y DATED 28TH
SEPTEMBER 2020.
WPC No.19266/2020
EXHIBIT R3(M) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
J3/182/2020/LD DATED 29/09/2020 AND
TYPED COPY.
EXHIBIT R3(N) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
30/09/2020 FROM 2ND RESPONDENT AND
TYPED COPY.
EXHIBIT R3(O) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
IGR/338/2018-L3 DATED 05/11/2020.
EXHIBIT R3(P) TRUE COPY OF THE CP NO 42/2020 FILED
BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW
TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BRANCH.
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.12/2020 DATED 30/03/2020 OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS.
EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.IGR/338/2018/L3 DATED 05/11/2020
ISSUED BY THE NON TRADING COMPANY
REGISTRAR.
