Mukut Pathak & Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 4 November, 2019
This Court
is in respectful disagreement with the aforesaid view and concurs with
the view of the Gujarat High Court in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah v
Union of India (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 145 (0.83 seconds)Khushru Dorab Madan vs Union Of India on 27 January, 2020
In the Judgment relied on by the petitioners Gaurang
Balvatlal Shah Vs. Union of India (supra), a learned Single Judge
of the Gujarat High Court by Judgment dated 18.12.2018 had
questioned the authority of the Registrar to deactivate the DIN
number. This was based on a reading of Rule 11 of the Companies
(Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules 2014. There can
be no quarrel with the rule.
Mohammed Danish Khan vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2019
A reading of the above provision makes it clear that it provides
disqualification on happening of an event i.e., if a person who is or has been
a director of a company has not filed financial statements or annual returns
for any continuous period of three financial years, shall be ineligible to be re-
appointed as a director of that company or appointed in any other company
for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do
so. The provision does not provide for issuance of any prior notice or
hearing. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Yashodara
Shroff v. Union of India (1 supra), as well as the learned single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah s/o
Balvantlal Shah vs. Union of India (2 supra), after analyzing various
provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, and by relying on various
judgments of the Apex Court, held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act applies
by operation of law on the basis of the circumstances stated therein, the said
provision does not envisage any hearing, neither pre-disqualification nor
post-disqualification and this is not in violation of the principles of natural
justice and hence, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. I concur
with the said reasoning.
Sri . Kothandaraman Badri Kasturi vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2019
A reading of the above provision makes it clear that it provides
disqualification on happening of an event i.e., if a person who is or has been
a director of a company has not filed financial statements or annual returns
for any continuous period of three financial years, shall be ineligible to be re-
appointed as a director of that company or appointed in any other company
for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do
so. The provision does not provide for issuance of any prior notice or
hearing. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Yashodara
Shroff v. Union of India (1 supra), as well as the learned single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah s/o
Balvantlal Shah vs. Union of India (2 supra), after analyzing various
provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, and by relying on various
judgments of the Apex Court, held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act applies
by operation of law on the basis of the circumstances stated therein, the said
provision does not envisage any hearing, neither pre-disqualification nor
post-disqualification and this is not in violation of the principles of natural
justice and hence, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. I concur
with the said reasoning.
Mohemmed Gulam Murtuza vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2019
A reading of the above provision makes it clear that it provides
disqualification on happening of an event i.e., if a person who is or has been
a director of a company has not filed financial statements or annual returns
for any continuous period of three financial years, shall be ineligible to be re-
appointed as a director of that company or appointed in any other company
for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do
so. The provision does not provide for issuance of any prior notice or
hearing. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Yashodara
Shroff v. Union of India (1 supra), as well as the learned single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah s/o
Balvantlal Shah vs. Union of India (2 supra), after analyzing various
provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, and by relying on various
judgments of the Apex Court, held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act applies
by operation of law on the basis of the circumstances stated therein, the said
provision does not envisage any hearing, neither pre-disqualification nor
post-disqualification and this is not in violation of the principles of natural
justice and hence, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. I concur
with the said reasoning.
Sanjay Mandava vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2020
In the Judgment relied on by the
petitioners Gaurang Balvatlal Shah Vs.
Union of India (supra), a learned Single
Judge of the Gujarat High Court by Judgment
dated 18.12.2018 had questioned the authority
of the Registrar to deactivate the DIN number.
This was based on a reading of Rule 11 of the
Companies (Appointment and Qualification of
Directors) Rules 2014. There can be no quarrel
with the rule.
Ganesh Oruganti Din 01264541 vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2019
A reading of the above provision makes it clear that it provides
disqualification on happening of an event i.e., if a person who is or has been
a director of a company has not filed financial statements or annual returns
for any continuous period of three financial years, shall be ineligible to be re-
appointed as a director of that company or appointed in any other company
for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do
so. The provision does not provide for issuance of any prior notice or
hearing. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Yashodara
Shroff v. Union of India (1 supra), as well as the learned single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah s/o
Balvantlal Shah vs. Union of India (2 supra), after analyzing various
provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, and by relying on various
judgments of the Apex Court, held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act applies
by operation of law on the basis of the circumstances stated therein, the said
provision does not envisage any hearing, neither pre-disqualification nor
post-disqualification and this is not in violation of the principles of natural
justice and hence, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. I concur
with the said reasoning.
Rajani Jagarlamudi vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2019
A reading of the above provision makes it clear that it provides
disqualification on happening of an event i.e., if a person who is or has been
a director of a company has not filed financial statements or annual returns
for any continuous period of three financial years, shall be ineligible to be re-
appointed as a director of that company or appointed in any other company
for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do
so. The provision does not provide for issuance of any prior notice or
hearing. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Yashodara
Shroff v. Union of India (1 supra), as well as the learned single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah s/o
Balvantlal Shah vs. Union of India (2 supra), after analyzing various
provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, and by relying on various
judgments of the Apex Court, held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act applies
by operation of law on the basis of the circumstances stated therein, the said
provision does not envisage any hearing, neither pre-disqualification nor
post-disqualification and this is not in violation of the principles of natural
justice and hence, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. I concur
with the said reasoning.
Ajjagottu Ramanathareddy vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2019
A reading of the above provision makes it clear that it provides
disqualification on happening of an event i.e., if a person who is or has been
a director of a company has not filed financial statements or annual returns
for any continuous period of three financial years, shall be ineligible to be re-
appointed as a director of that company or appointed in any other company
for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do
so. The provision does not provide for issuance of any prior notice or
hearing. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Yashodara
Shroff v. Union of India (1 supra), as well as the learned single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah s/o
Balvantlal Shah vs. Union of India (2 supra), after analyzing various
provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, and by relying on various
judgments of the Apex Court, held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act applies
by operation of law on the basis of the circumstances stated therein, the said
provision does not envisage any hearing, neither pre-disqualification nor
post-disqualification and this is not in violation of the principles of natural
justice and hence, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. I concur
with the said reasoning.
Sri Sridhar Reddy Dudipala vs The Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 18 July, 2019
A reading of the above provision makes it clear that it provides
disqualification on happening of an event i.e., if a person who is or has been
a director of a company has not filed financial statements or annual returns
for any continuous period of three financial years, shall be ineligible to be re-
appointed as a director of that company or appointed in any other company
for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do
so. The provision does not provide for issuance of any prior notice or
hearing. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Yashodara
Shroff v. Union of India (1 supra), as well as the learned single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Gaurang Balvantlal Shah s/o
Balvantlal Shah vs. Union of India (2 supra), after analyzing various
provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, and by relying on various
judgments of the Apex Court, held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act applies
by operation of law on the basis of the circumstances stated therein, the said
provision does not envisage any hearing, neither pre-disqualification nor
post-disqualification and this is not in violation of the principles of natural
justice and hence, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. I concur
with the said reasoning.