Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1295 - MADRAS HIGH COURTSeeking direction to respondents to permit the petitioner to get reappointed as Director of any Company or appointed in any other Company without any hindrance - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this writ petition is no more a res integra. It is to be stated that the Registrar of Companies (RoC) has been disqualifying the Directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 by order dated 08.09.2017. Another list was published in the website of the first respondent on 01.11.2017 disqualifying the Directors. Yet another list of Directors were disqualified on 17.12.2018 by the RoC. Issue decided in the case of MEETHELAVEETIL KAITHERI MURALIDHARAN, KAMAL ANEESMOHAMED, SATHISH KUMAR GOPAL, GOVINDASAMY BALASUBRAMANIAM, PAARI SENTHIL KUMAR, PAARI DHANALAKSHMI, VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI, [2020 (10) TMI 595 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that if a person is a director of five companies, which may be referred to as companies A to E, if the default is committed by company A by not filing financial statements or annual returns, the said director of company A would incur disqualification and would vacate office as director of companies B to E. However, the said person would not vacate office as director of company A. If such person does not vacate office and continues to be a director of company A, it is necessary that such person continues to retain the DIN. Following the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan's case, the Writ Petition is allowed.
|