Potluri Nagendra Vara Prasad vs The Ministry Of Corporate Affairs
2021 Latest Caselaw 287 Tel

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                           W.P.No.2438 of 2021
ORDER:

Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent - The Registrar,

Office of the Registrar of Companies, in disqualifying the petitioner as

Director of the Company under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act,

2013, and deactivating his Director Identification Number (DIN), the

present writ petition is filed.

2. With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition

is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended

that the matter is squarely covered by the common order, dated

18.07.2019, passed by this Court in W.P.No.5422 of 2018 and batch.

Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed in terms of the above

referred common order.

4. Sri N. Rajeshwar Rao, the learned Assistant Solicitor General

appearing on behalf of the respondents, has fairly conceded that the

common order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.5422 of

2018 and batch, dated 18.07.2019, covers the lis in question.

5. A reading of the common order, dated 18.07.2019, passed in

W.P.No.5422 of 2018 and batch, reveals that this Court while dealing

with the issue in question, has held as under:

"23. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the judgments referred to supra, as the impugned orders in present writ petitions disqualifying the petitioners as Directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act, have been passed considering the

period prior to 01.04.2014, the same cannot be sustained, and are liable to be set aside to that extent.

.....

30. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the judgment referred to supra, the deactivation of the DINs of the petitioners for alleged violations under Section 164 of the Act, cannot be sustained.

31. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders in the writ petitions to the extent of disqualifying the petitioners under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act and deactivation of their DINs, are set aside, and the 2nd respondent is directed to activate the DINs of the petitioners, enabling them to function as Directors other than in strike off companies.

32. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the 2nd respondent from taking appropriate action in accordance with law for violations as envisaged under Section 164(2) of the Act, giving the said provision prospective effect from 01.04.2014 and for necessary action against DIN in case of violations of Rule 11 of the Rules.

33. It is also made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in striking off their companies under Section 248 of the Act, they are at liberty to avail alternative remedy under Section 252 of the Act.

34. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above."

6. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in

terms of the common order, dated 18.07.2019, passed in W.P.No.5422 of

2018 and batch. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

Date : 04.02.2021 rkk