IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.50440 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Satya Pal Ranjan S/o. Brundaban Pal Aged about 36 years, R/o. Plot No.249/545 Lane-4, Paika Nagar, East, Bhuwaneshwar, Odisha-751003 (By Sri. Mohit Yadav, Advocate) And:
1. Union of India, (Through Secretary, Through Ministry of Corporate Affairs, (MCA) Shastri Bhavan) New Delhi-110001.
2. Registrar of Companies (ROC) Bengaluru (Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Union of India) ‘E’ Wing, 2nd Floor Kendriya Sadana Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034.
(By Smt. Anupama Hegde, CGC) ... Petitioner ... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the R2 under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 disqualifying petitioner from being director from 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2021 and annexure-C which gives the list of directors associated with struck off companies under Section 248 dated 24.10.2017 and the circular dated 06.09.2017 which has been marked as annexure D and circular dated 12.09.2017 which has been marked as annexure-D1.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned Central Government Counsel is directed to take notice for respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel for respondents.
3. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
4. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by an order dated 12.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.52911/2017 and connected matters.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned by a Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order, the writ petition is disposed of on same terms and with the following directions:
(i) Where the disqualification of the petitioners is based by taking into consideration any financial year “prior to 01.04.2014 as well as subsequent thereto” while reckoning continuous period of three financial years under Section 164(2) (a) of the Act, irrespective of whether the petitioners are directors of public companies or private companies, such a disqualification being bad in law, the Writ petitions are allowed and the impugned list is quashed to that extent only;
(ii)If the disqualification of the petitioners is based by taking into consideration any financial year prior to 01.04.2014 only i.e., the disqualification has occurred under the provisions of the 1956 Act in respect of the public companies, the writ petitions are dismissed.
(iii) If the disqualification of the directors is based by taking into consideration of three continuous financial years subsequent to 01.04.2014, irrespective of whether the petitioners are directors of public companies or private companies, they stand disqualified under the Act;
(iv) Where the disqualification of the directors is based by taking into consideration any financial year prior to 01.04.2014 in respect of private companies, such disqualification being bad in law, the writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent only;
(v)The writ petitions, wherein the challenge is also made to the vires of Section 164(2)(a), and/or 167(1)(a) and/or proviso to Section 167(1)(a) of the Act, are dismissed to the aforesaid extent;
(vi) The respondents are directed to restore the DIN of those directors whose disqualification has been quashed by this Court;
(vii) Those petitioners who have challenged only the striking off of the companies in which they are directors have an alternative remedy of filing a proceeding before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, which provides for an appeal to be filed within a period of three years from the date of passing of the order dissolving the company under Section 248 of the Act. Hence, those writ petitions are dismissed reserving liberty to those petitioners who are aggrieved by the dissolution of the companies under Section 248 of the Act (struck off companies) to approach NCLT, if so advised;
(viii) Parties to bear their own costs.
SD/- JUDGE KMV*