Madras High Court
Giridharan Srivatchan vs Union Of India on 20 March, 2023
W.P.No.29303 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.29303 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.29104 of 2019
Giridharan Srivatchan ... 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,
Tamilnadu, Chennai,
Block No.6, B Wing 2nd Floor,
Shastri Bhawan 26,
Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the 2nd respectively relating to the impugned order dated 17.12.2018
uploaded in the website of the 1st respondent in so far as the petitioner is
concerned, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit and
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29303 of 2019
consequentially direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to get
reappointed as Directors of any Company or appointed as Directors in any
company and utilize his DIN without any hindrance.
For Petitioner : Mr.Rohan Rajasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.J.Madana Gopal Rao [R1]
*****
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respectively relating to the
impugned order dated 17.12.2018 uploaded in the website of the first
respondent in so far as the petitioner is concerned, and quash the same as
illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit and consequentially, to direct the
respondents herein to permit the petitioner to get reappointed as Directors
of any Company or appointed as Directors in any company and utilize his
DIN without any hindrance.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is one of the
Directors of M/s. Newtone Global Private Limited. However, the second
respondent has disqualified the petitioner as a Director under Section
164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 through the impugned order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29303 of 2019
17.12.2018 on the ground that the petitioner has not filed the annual
returns for three consecutive Financial Year. Challenging the said
impugned order, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.
3. Mr.Rohan Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the very same impugned order was challenged by the similarly
placed Director in W.P.No.3645 of 2021 and the same was allowed on
17.02.2021 by following the decision rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.569 & Ors. of 2020, in which, the impugned order
disqualifying the Directors were set aside.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.569 & Ors. of 2020
in the case of Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan Vs. Union of India
& Another in paragraphs 36 and 38, has held as follows :
“37. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29303 of 2019
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.
38. 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.”
5. It is seen that the very same impugned order was quashed by this
Court in W.P.No.3645 of 2021 by following the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.569 & Ors. of 2020, dated 09.10.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29303 of 2019
6. The case on hand stands on the same footing. In the instant case
also, no notice was given to the petitioner before disqualifying him as
Director of M/s. Newtone Global Private Limited.
7. For the foregoing, reasons, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, dated 09.10.2020 in W.A.No.569 & Ors. of
2020 applies to the facts of the instant case also.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the
second respondent disqualifying the petitioner as Director of M/s.Newtone
Global Private Limited under Section 164(2) (a) of the Companies Act,
2013 is hereby set aside in terms of the aforesaid judgment and the writ
petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
20.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
sp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29303 of 2019
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp
To
1.The Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Shastri Bhawan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Registrar of Companies,
Tamilnadu, Chennai,
Block No.6, B Wing 2nd Floor,
Shastri Bhawan 26,
Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
W.P.No.29303 of 2019
20.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
