Kerala High Court
Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma ... vs Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma ... on 8 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942
RP.No.113 OF 2021 IN WP(C).19266/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/01/2021 IN W.P.(C)
No.19266/2020(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7:
1 ARUVIPURAM SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPANALA
YOGAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
V.K. NATESAN,
SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM- 691 001.
2 V.K. NATESAN,
S/O. KESAVAN, GENERAL SECRETARY,
S.N.D.P. YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM - 691 001,
RESIDING AT VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE,
KANICHUKULANGARA P. O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 582.
3 DR. M.N.SOMAN,
PRESIDENT, S.N.D.P YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM - 691 001.
4 THUSHAR,
S/O. V. K. NATESAN,
VICE PRESIDENT, S.N.D.P YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM - 691 001.,
RESIDING AT VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE,
KANICHUKULANGARA P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 582.
RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020
:2 :
5 SANTHOSH @ ARYANKKANDIL SANTHOSH,
DEVASWOM SECRETARY,
S.N.D.P YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B. NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM - 691 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA)
SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 PROF. M.K.SANOO,
AGED 93 YEARS,
S/O. MANGALATH, M.C. KESAVAN,
'SANDYA', KARIKKAMURI,
KOCHI - 682 011.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
EX-MAYER R.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD,
NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1 BY ADV SRI. P.B. KRISHNAN,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020
:3 :
ORDER
~~~~~~
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2021
Respondents 3 to 7 in W.P.(C) No.19266/2020
have filed this Review Petition seeking to review the judgment
dated 05.01.2021 in the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent
seeking to declare that petitioners 2 to 5 herein are
disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013
to act as the Directors/office bearers of the 1 st petitioner-
Yogam. The writ petition was disposed of directing the 3 rd
respondent-Inspector General of Registration to consider and
take a decision on Ext.P4 petition submitted by the writ
petitioner within a period of three months after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as well as the
Directors of the 1st petitioner-Yogam.
3. The counsel for the review petitioners argued that
in paragraph 26 of the judgment of this Court, it has been
RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020
stated that 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 and that even if such attempts were made
unsuccessfully, that may not be sufficient to avert
disqualification. The learned counsel pointed out that since
Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 came into effect
only from 01.04.2014, the three financial years should be
counted from 2014-'15 and not from 2013-'14, as erroneously
held in the judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
argued that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras
has held in the judgments in Kandrikar Ehsan Ahmed v.
Union of India and another [2021 SCC OnLine Mad 719] and
in the judgment in WA No.569/2020 and connected appeals
that disqualification of Directors on failure to file Annual
Returns/Financial Statements is not automatic. The judgment
in W.P.(C) No.19266/2020 is liable to be reviewed on that
ground also.
RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020
5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued
that even if the financial year is to be counted from 2014-'15
as argued by the review petitioners, the final outcome of the
writ petition will be the same. As regards the judgments of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras on the question of
disqualification of Directors, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent pointed out that this Court arrived at a conclusion
on the said issue based on reasons and the same is not liable
to be altered only because the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Madras has taken a different view.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the review
petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent.
7. It may be noted that in the writ petition, this Court
has not finally decided the question of disqualification as
Directors, of the review petitioners. This Court directed the 3 rd
respondent to consider the issue, with notice to affected
parties. Therefore, even if the observations of this Court are
erroneous, it will not affect the review petitioners. This Court
does not find that the judgment is liable to be reviewed in view
RP.113/2021 in WPC.19266/2020
of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Madras.
8. However, there is some force in the argument of
the learned counsel for the review petitioners that the financial
year should be counted from the year 2014-'15 for the
purpose of disqualification of Directors. Since in the judgment
in writ petition, the issue of disqualification is left to be decided
by the 3rd respondent, this Court does not deem it necessary
to review the judgment. The review petition can be disposed
of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the issues
untrammelled by the observations/findings of this Court.
In the circumstances, the review petition is
disposed of making it clear that the 3rd respondent shall
consider Ext.P4 petition as directed in the judgment
untrammelled by any observations contained in the judgment.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/10.03.2021
