Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mukul Somany & Anr vs Registrar Of Companies & Anr on 31 August, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
3 31.08. W.P. No.4282(W) of 2018
ns 2018
Mukul Somany & anr.
Versus
Registrar of Companies & anr.
Mr. Koushik Chatterjee,
Ms. Sudeshna Bagchi ... for the petitioners.
Mr. Shib Chandra Prasad ... for respondents.
Re: CAN No.6710 of 2018 This is an application for extension of the interim order granted on May 18, 2018.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents draws the attention of the Court to an order dated August 6, 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C ) Nos.18693 -18703 of 2018 (The Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai and Anr. Versus Shailendrajit Charanjit Rai & Anr.). He also draws the attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated March 22, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No.148 of 2018 2 (Shailendrajit Charanjit Rai & anr. Versus The Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai & anr.). He submits that, in view of the intervention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim order need not be extended.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the facts situation obtaining in the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay and the present matter are different. Moreover, the said judgment and order of the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay does not mean that, such judgment has been set aside. He seeks extension of the interim order.
Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, I find that disqualification of a Director under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 is the subject matter of consideration in the present writ petition. The same was the subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay. The judgment and order dated March 22, 2018 of the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Since the Special Leave Petition is pending, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to extend the interim order any further.
3
On the prayer of the learned Advocate for the respondents, time to file affidavit-in-opposition is extended for a period of two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
CAN No.6710 of 2018 is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
List the writ petition under the heading "Hearing" in the Monthly Combined List of October, 2018.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( Debangsu Basak, J. )