IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MAY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT APPEAL NO.1274 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MR MADHUKAR G ANGUR SON OF GUDDAPPA ANGUR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.1128, 21ST ‘A’ CROSS 14TH MAIN, 3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560102 2. MRS. PRIYANKA B S WIFE OF MADHUKAR ANGUR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.1128, 21ST ‘A’ CROSS, 14TH MAIN, 3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560102 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYAN, SR. ADV. FOR SRI H.K.SRIVASTHAVA, ADV.) AND:
1. SHRI SUDHIR ANGUR S/O SHRI GUDDAPPA ANGUR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CHANCELLOR OF ALLIANCE UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S.ALLIANCE BUSINESS SCHOOL NO.100, 34TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS DOLLARS SCHEME, BTM I STAGE BENGALURU – 560 068 2. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES KARNATAKA (MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS GOVERNEMNT OF INDIA,) E WING 2ND FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR SOUTH EASTERN REGION (SER) MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, 3RD FLOOR, CORPORATE BHAVAN, BANDLAGUDA NAGOLE, TATTIANNARAM VILLAGE, HAYAT NAGAR MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT HYDERABAD – 500 068 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CORPROATE AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE D. G. CORPORATE AFFAIRS KOTA HOUSE, ANNEXE NO.1 SHAHJAHAN ROAD NEW DELHI-110011 5. THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, A WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110011, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SRI D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY AND SRI MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATES FOR SRI M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, ADV. FOR R1 SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, C.G.C., FOR R2 TO R5) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SIGNLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.15878 OF 2019.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge dated 22.04.2019, in W.P.Nos.15878 of 2019, wherein the learned single Judge while considering the rival contentions of both the parties to the lis has permitted the respondents therein to file reply to the show cause notices within a week from the date of the order, restraining the Registrar of Companies from passing any final order in any proceeding initiated pursuant to the show cause notices till next date of hearing and also clarified that observations have been made in the order was only for the purpose of determining the issue with regard to the grant of interim relief. Hence, writ appeal is filed.
2. We have heard the learned senior counsels for the parties to the lis.
3. Sri V. Lakshminarayan, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge especially at paragraph No.9.(2) of the impugned order is nothing but deciding the main writ petitions when the very writ petitions are not maintainable. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeals.
4. Per contra, Sri JayaKumar S.Patil, Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy and Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned senior counsels for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned order and vehemently contended that in view of the clarification made, the learned single Judge has only permitted to file the reply and it is for the Registrar of Companies to proceed in accordance with law and therefore, sought to dismiss the appeals.
5. The respondents who are the petitioners before the learned single Judge in the writ petitions have sought for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue an appropriate Writ in the nature of PROHIBITION or any other appropriate writ or direction prohibiting the Respondent No.1 to 4 from taking any action under the Company's Act 2013 or any Rules made thereunder on the basis of the complaints lodged by the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 concerning the filings and uploadings done by way of DIR-12 or MGT-7 or any other filing or uploading/s done by or for the petitioner or by the Company M/s. Alliance Business School under the approval of the present board consisting of the petitioner.
b) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ or quash the order quashing the impugned show-cause notice dated 28.03.2019 No.ROCB/DROC(VSJ)/ABS/2019/4831 (vide Annexure-BB to the writ petition issued by the Respondent No.1 referring to the Directions of Respondents 2 to 4) proposing to take action under section 10(6) of Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules 2014 for invalidating DIR-12 forms filed by the Petitioners vide SRNS C780607040, C79606091, C79658084, G01073717, C79609616 and revised MGT-7 filled by the Petitioners vide SRN G01528264 and mark them as defective on the basis of certain repetitive complaints lodged by Mr. Madhukar Angur and Smt. Priyanka the Respondent No.5 and 6 herein.”
6. Though the learned seniors Counsels for both the parties have urged their contentions, the fact remains that while passing the impugned order, the learned single Judge though observed with regard to the provisions of Rule 10(6) of Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014, however, at paragraph No.10, has ordered that the petitioners shall file a reply to the show cause notices within a week and restrained the Registrar of Companies from passing any final order in any proceeding initiated pursuant to the show cause notices till the next date of hearing and also clarified that the observations were made only for the purpose of determining the issue with regard to the grant of interim relief and posted the case on 12.06.2019.
7. In view of the observations made by the learned single Judge while permitting the petitioners to file reply to show cause notices, within a week from the date of the order, it shall not come in the way of the Registrar of Companies to hold enquiry in accordance with law. However, the Registrar of Companies shall not pass any final order as per the order of the learned single Judge.
8. With these observations, writ appeal is disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE nvj