Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rangasamy Vinayagam Saravenen vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 14137 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14137 Mad
Judgement Date : 15 July, 2021

Madras High Court
Rangasamy Vinayagam Saravenen vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2021
                                                                                     W.P.No.14559 of 2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 15.07.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

                                                W.P.No.14559 of 2021
                                                         and
                                             WMP.Nos.15444 & 15447 of 2021


                     Rangasamy Vinayagam Saravenen                             .. Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                     1. Union of India,
                        Represented by its Ministry of Corporate,
                        Affairs,
                        Shastri Bhawan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
                        New Delhi - 110 001.
                     2. The Registrar of Companies,
                        Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
                        Block No.6, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhawan
                        26, Haddows Road,
                        Chennai - 600 034.                                     .. Respondents

                     Prayer:       Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
                     praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
                     records of the 2nd respondent relating to the Impugned Order dated
                     17.12.2018 uploaded in the website of the 1st respondent in so far as the
                     petitioner herein is concerned with DIN No.00329589, quash the same as

                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                            W.P.No.14559 of 2021


                     illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit and consequentially direct the
                     respondents herein to permit the Petitioner to get re-appointed as Director of
                     any Company or appointed as Director in any Company without any
                     hindrance.


                                         For Petitioner        : Mr.Deepan Uday
                                         For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Sathiyan
                                                               Central Government Standing Counsel

                                         For Respondent No.2 : Mr.M.Stalin Abimanyu
                                                               Government Advocate

                                                               ORDER

The prayer made in this writ petition is to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus,

calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the order dated

17.12.2018, which was uploaded in the website of the first respondent,

insofar as the petitioner is concerned and quash the same and for

consequential relief.

2.According to the petitioner, the second respondent released a list of

disqualified directors, who have been disqualified under Section 164(2)(a)

of the Companies Act, 2013, as directors with effect from 01.11.2016, in

which, his name was also mentioned as item no.1234 (DIN No: 00329589).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14559 of 2021

In other words, the second respondent, by including the name of the

petitioner, has disqualified him as Director under Section 164(2)(a) of the

Companies Act, 2013 for non-filing of financial statements or annual

returns for continuous period of three financial years by the defaulting

companies on whose board, the petitioner is also a Director, due to which,

he is prohibited from being appointed or reappointed as director in any other

company for a period of 5 years. Stating that the action so taken by the

second respondent is arbitrary and unreasonable, the petitioner has filed the

present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

3.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned

counsel appearing for the parties jointly submitted that the issue involved

herein is no longer res integra. Earlier, this Court by order dated 03.08.2018

in WP.No.25455 of 2017 etc. batch, in Bhagavan Das Dhananjaya Das

case reported in (2018) 6 MLJ 704, allowed those writ petitions and set

aside the orders dated 08.09.2017, 01.11.2017, 17.12.2018, etc. passed by

the Registrar of Companies, disqualifying the petitioners therein to hold the

office of directorship of the companies under Section 164(2)(a) of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14559 of 2021

Companies Act, which came into effect from 01.04.2014. Thereafter, yet

another set of disqualified directors approached this court by filing

WP.No.13616 of 2018 etc. batch (Khushru Dorab Madan v. Union of

India) which were dismissed by order dated 27.01.2020. The said order of

the learned single judge was challenged by some of the petitioners therein

before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.569 of 2020, etc. batch

(Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan v. Union of India, 2020 SCC

OnLine Mad 2958 : (2020) 6 CTC 113), which after elaborately dealt with

the issue as to whether the RoC is entitled to deactivate the Director

Identification Number (DIN), allowed those writ appeals on 09.10.2020, the

relevant passage of which, are profitably, extracted below:

"41. As is evident from the above, Rules 9 and 10 deals with the application for allotment of DIN. Rule 10(6) specifies that the DIN is valid for the life time of the applicant and shall not be allotted to any other person. Rule 11 provides for the cancellation or surrender or deactivation of the DIN. It is very clear upon examining Rule 11 that neither cancellation nor deactivation is provided for upon disqualification under Section 164(2) of CA 2013. In this connection, it is also pertinent to refer to Section 167(1) of CA 2013 which provides

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14559 of 2021

for vacating the office of director by a director of a Defaulting Company. As a corollary, it follows that if a person is a director of five companies, which may be referred to as companies A to E, if the default is committed by company A by not filing financial statements or annual returns, the said director of company A would incur disqualification and would vacate office as director of companies B to E. However, the said person would not vacate office as director of company A. If such person does not vacate office and continues to be a director of company A, it is necessary that such person continues to retain the DIN. In this connection, it is also pertinent to point out that it is not possible to file either the financial statements or the annual returns without a DIN. Consequently, the director of Defaulting Company A, in the above example, would be required to retain the DIN so as to make good the deficiency by filing the respective documents. Thus, apart from the fact that the AQD Rules do not empower the ROC to deactivate the DIN, we find that such deactivation would also be contrary to Section 164(2) read with 167(1) of CA 2013 inasmuch as the person concerned would continue to be a director of the Defaulting Company.

42. In light of the above analysis, we concur with the views of the Delhi High Court in Mukut Pathak, the Allahabad High Court in Jai Shankar Agrahari and the Gujarat High

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14559 of 2021

Court in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah to the effect that the ROC is not empowered to deactivate the DIN under the relevant rules. In Yashodhara Shroff, the Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 164(2) and proceeded to hold that a prior or post decisional hearing is not necessary. For reasons detailed in preceding paragraphs, we disagree with the view of the Karnataka High Court that prior notice is not required under Section 164(2) of CA 2013.

43. In the result, these appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2020. Consequently, the publication of the list of disqualified directors by the ROC and the deactivation of the DIN of the Appellants is hereby quashed. As a corollary to our conclusion on the deactivation of DIN, the DIN of the respective directors shall be reactivated within 30 days of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Nonetheless, we make it clear that it is open to the ROC concerned to initiate action with regard to disqualification subject to an enquiry to decide the question of attribution of default to specific directors by taking into account the observations and conclusions herein. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

4.Therefore, following the aforesaid decision, the writ petition stands

allowed, in the terms as indicated in the judgment in Meethelaveetil

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14559 of 2021

Kaitheri Muralidharan's case. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

15.07.2021 msr Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no

To

1. Union of India, Represented by its Ministry of Corporate, Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 001.

2. The Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

Block No.6, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhawan 26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 034.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14559 of 2021

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

msr

W.P.No.14559 of 2021 and WMP.Nos.15444 & 15447 of 2021

15.07.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter