Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Naveen Kumar Agarwal vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 August, 2018
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
07.08.18
.
Item No 12 Court No.15 Avijit Mitra W.P. No. 12523 (W) of 2018 In re: Naveen Kumar Agarwal
- Versus -
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. D.N. Sharma, Mr. I. Karfa, Mr. D. Deb, Mr. A. Das For the Petitioner Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty, Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee For the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is a list published by the Registrar of the Companies naming the Directors of the companies who have attracted disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short, the said Act of 2013).
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Director of various companies, including M/s. Swarnrekha Steel Industries Limited and M/s. Adhunik Shristi & Power Trading Company Limited (in short, the said companies). It is for non-filing of annual return of the said companies for a consecutive period of three years, the petitioner is said to be disqualified from acting as Director of any companies with effect from 1st November, 2016.
He further submits that Section 164(2) of the said Act of 2013 came into operation with effect from 1st April, 2014 and hence the same cannot be made applicable for any period prior thereto and as such, the direction to disqualify the petitioner with effect from the financial years 2013-14 is not sustainable. In support of such argument, reliance has 2 been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Arun Seth vs. Union of India, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 17624 (disposed of on 15.11.2017).
Per contra, Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition from which the said appeal [Arun Seth vs. Union of India] arose has already been withdrawn. According to him, Section 164(2) of the said Act refers to non-filing of annual return for "any" continuous period of three financial years and it need not be for a period after Section 164(2) of the said Act came into force.
Prima facie, an arguable case has been made out by the petitioner and it appears that the disqualification under Section 164(2) of the said Act of 2013 would not prevent the petitioner to continue to act as Director of other companies which are not in default.
Accordingly, there shall be an interim order staying the operation of the impugned list of disqualified Directors published by the respondent no. 2 so far as it pertains to the petitioner herein.
There shall be a further interim order allowing the petitioner to continue as Director in all the companies in which the petitioner has been serving as Director and to comply with the formalities, as provided under the Companies Act, 2013.
The said interim orders shall continue till the end of November, 2018 or until further order whichever is earlier.
Affidavit-in-opposition be filed by the respondents within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this matter for further consideration in the combined monthly list of November, 2018.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. 3 (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)