IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.43497/2019(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Shankar Mahesh, No.110, Lakshmi Krishna Garden, S/o Mr. Mahesh Revanna Aged 37 years, Main Road, Krishna Garden, Pattnagere Rajarajeshwari Nagara, Bangalore-560059.
(By Sri. K.V. Omprakash, Advocate) AND:
1. Union of India, Represented by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shastri Bhavan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi – 110001.
2. Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, ‘E’ Wing, 2nd Block, Kendriya Sadana, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri Timmanna Bhat Devathe, Central Government Counsel) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-ACTIVATE THE DIN OF THE PETITIONER BY ALTERING THE DIN STATUS AND TO REFLECT AS ACTIVE IN THE MCA OFFICIAL WEBSITE AS PER ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner in the above writ petition has sought to direct the respondents to re-activate the DIN of the petitioner by altering the DIN status and to reflect as Active in the MCA Official Website, as per Annexure- C, declare that the decision of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide its directions uploaded on the MCA Website disqualifying the petitioner as per Annexure-A qua Directors of the Private Limited Company is unconstitutional and is in contravention of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India, by virtue of which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not given any opportunity to remove disqualification to the Director.
2. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been considered and disposed off by this Court by the Order dated 12.06.2019 made in W.P.No.52911/ 2017 and connected matters.
3. The said submission is placed on record.
4. 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 off 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 Companies Act, 2013, 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 kcm