Allahabad High Court
Chhote Lal And Another vs Union Of India And Another on 24 September, 2020
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13463 of 2020 Petitioner :- Chhote Lal And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pramod Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
1. Heard Sri Shyam Singh Sombansi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Union of India-respondents.
2. In this writ petition, petitioners are Directors of Company and have been disqualified under Section 164(2) of Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013") and also declared to have suffered consequences of such disqualification under Section 167(1) of Act, 2013. Petitioners have also challenged list of Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as "ROC") declaring petitioners as disqualified for a period of five years to be Director of Companies.
3. Learned counsel for parties, at the outset, admitted that issues raised in the present writ petition have already been adjudicated by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12498 of 2019, Jai Shankar Agrahari vs. Union of India and another, decided on 16.01.2020. Operative part of judgment reads as under:
"83. We accordingly allow writ petitions partly. We also quash the list published by ROC, declaring petitioners in all these writ petitions as disqualified to be Directors of companies and debarment of being Director for a period of five years.
84. ROC, now, shall be at liberty to give a notice to petitioners to verify and establish the facts whether disqualification alleged to have been suffered by petitioners-Directors so as to attract Section 164 (2) of Act, 2013, actually exist or not. After giving them opportunity and being satisfied that such disqualification has occurred, it will proceed further in accordance with law."
4. We have also gone through the record and above judgment and find that issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
5. For the reasons given in our judgment dated 16.01.2020 in Jai Shankar Agrahari (supra) and in the same terms and directions, the present writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 24.9.2020 vinay