Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (2.13 seconds)
Documents citing Nabendu Dutta And Ors. vs Arindam Mukherjee And Ors. on 20 May, 2003

Yashodhara Shroff vs Union Of India on 12 June, 2019

141. Learned ASG also relied upon the order of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Nabendu Dutta and others vs. Arindam Mukerjee and others, [(2004) 121 Comp.case 150 (Cal)] (Nabendu Dutta), wherein Section 274(1)(g) of the 1956 Act came up for consideration. It was observed that under the said provision, if a person was already a Director in a defaulting company on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act (of 2000), he would be affected by the said provision. That the language of Section 274(1)(g) contextually made the provision retrospective in operation. The expression "is already a director" was interpreted to mean as one who has continued to be a director till the date of commencement of the Act. The expression "has failed to repay its deposits" was observed to be in present perfect tense, which suggested that the failure started even before the commencement of the Act. According to the Calcutta High Court, if the language was intended to refer to a future event or occurrence, then
Karnataka High Court Cites 236 - Cited by 135 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

Jai Shankar Agrahari vs Union Of India And Another on 16 January, 2020

9. On behalf of both respondents, i.e, Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Registrar of Companies, U.P., i.e. ROC, a combined short counter affidavit has been filed which is sworn by Sri Sudhir Kapoor, Registrar of Companies. It is said that Act, 2013 lays down a stricter regime for defaulting companies with higher additional fees; Quantum of punishment has been enhanced; provision for enhanced fine in case of repeated default has been included vide Section 451; Section 164(2) provides for disqualification of Directors in case the Company has failed to file Financial Statement or Annual Return for continuous period of three years "has been made and is extended to all Companies"; Vide General Circular No.34 of 2014 an opportunity was provided to defaulting companies to make their default good by filing belated documents on payment of certain fee and thereby avoiding prosecution etc; another scheme was launched by respondents, namely, "Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018" commencing from 01.01.2018; in the present case ROC, Kanpur has acted under Section 164(2) and Section 167 of Act, 2013; it is the duty of "Directors" to ensure compliance of statutory requirements in respect of companies in which they are Directors; Petitioner has failed to ensure it; there is no retrospectivity given to Sections 164 or 167; similar argument has been negated by Calcutta High Court in Nabendu Dutta and others vs. Arindam Mukherjee, 2004(55) SCL 146; Respondents have not issued any notification or order regarding disqualification of petitioner but only identified; there is a complete failure on the part of petitioner to comply with Rule 14 of Rules, 2014; Section 164(2) is pari materia to Section 274(1)(g) of Act, 1956 and it was upheld in a similar matter by Bombay High Court in Snowcem India Ltd. and Ors. vs Union Of India and Ors., 2005(60) SCL 50; Gujarat High Court has also taken a similar view in Saurashtra Cement Ltd. and Anr. vs Union Of India and Ors., 2007(75) SCL 375; the disqualification of "Director" under Section 164 (2) is automatic, by operation of law as soon as default is committed and identified by concerned Registrar.
Allahabad High Court Cites 143 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Bhagavan Das Dhananjaya Das vs Union Of India on 3 August, 2018

14. Under this background, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the disqualification for appointment of directors contemplated under Section 164(2)(a) is necessarily to be read along with Section 167. A conjoined reading of both sections, the post of director shall become vacant in case he incurs any of the disqualification defined under Section 164. Therefore, if a director of a company has not filed the financial statement or annual return for a continuous period of three financial years, he/she shall not be eligible to be reappointed as director of a company, as a result, the office of directorship shall become vacant, because of incurring the disqualification under Section 164. Now by virtue of the operation of law, all the writ petitioners suffered disqualification by virtue of Section 164(2)(a) read with Section 167(1)(a). Hence, Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 alone cannot be read in isolation. Mr.G.Rajagopalan further submitted that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and it is the duty of the directors to make statutory compliance within the time prescribed under the law. Since the petitioners have failed in their statutory duties for not filing the annual returns for a continuous period of three financial years, the striking off the names of the companies and the consequential effect of disqualification of their directorship in the same company or in any other company cannot be found fault with. Taking support from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Nabendu Dutta v. Arindam Mukherjee, (2004) 55 SCL 146 (Cal.), it has been submitted that the Calcutta High Court has held that on the date of commencement of the amending Act, if any person has been a director in a defaulting company, he shall also be debarred to be appointed as director of any company for a period of five years. Therefore, when Section 164(2)(a) have two limbs, the words no person who is or has been director of a company which are used in the present continous and present perfect continuous form, respectively and the words has not filed financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three years which are used in present perfect tense, meaning thereby that in case any company has defaulted in filing its financial statement or annual return for a continuous period of three years, then no person who is occupying the position of director shall be eligible for reappointment as director of that company and he shall be debarred to be appointed as director in any company for a period of five years. In the light of the above, actions have been taken by the answering respondent only in identification of the disqualified directors and in accordance with the operation of law as envisaged under Section 164(2)(a) read with Section 167(1)(a). Therefore, this Court does not have any jurisdiction to undo the disqualification which had occurred on account of operation of law. Referring to paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that on verification of the statutory returns for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, it was found that the defaulting companies in which the petitioners are directors, failed to file the statutory returns for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, hence, they would stand disqualified due to the operation of law under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 309 - T Raja - Full Document

Eanokaran Anthony Tony vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2022

In support of the contention, reliance W.P.(C) No.1162 of 2022 -8- is placed on the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Nabendu Dutta v. Arindam Mukherjee [(2004) 55 SCL 146 (Cal)]. It is pointed out that the second respondent had only identified the disqualified Directors by flagging in the system as there was failure on their part to comply with the requirement of Section 164(2) and Rule 14(3) of the Companies (Appointment of Directors) Rules, 2014.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document
1