Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2016 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1678 - Tri - Companies LawDisqualification of Directors - Section 164 (2) (a) r/w Section 167 (1) (a) of the Companies Act 2013 - principles of res-judicata - retrospective effect or not - declaration of cease to continue as directors. Whether this CA is hit by resjudicata or not? - HELD THAT:- It is not permissible in the light of the principle laid under Section 11 (IV) of CPC to seek removal of them as directors on another legal ground. No doubt it is true that if new legislation comes and gives new jurisdiction with retrospective action relating back to the acts in the past, it is altogether different situation. But when new Act has been in even before filing earlier CA 201/2015 for the removal of R4&R5 as directors, it can't be taken out separately subsequently after waiting until earlier application was dealt with - the applicant cannot take out a sentence from the order saying that since he is given liberty to seek interlocutory order on additional facts, he is entitled raise on the same facts by invoking another legal point. The applicant ought to have raised all these legal scores in the former application itself - thus, the relief sought by the applicant in this CA is held as hit by constructive resjudicata. Whether the disqualification set forth in Section 164(2)(a) r/w 167(1) (a) of the Act 2013 has retrospective effect or not? - HELD THAT:- In the present case non-filing of financial statements before this enactment would not tantamount to disqualification to become Director or to continue as Director, new enactment made non-filing of financial statements for three consecutive years as disqualification and amounts to an offence only to the act after 1.4.2014 - If this disqualification is construed as applicable to the past acts, it is obviously unfair to the people conducted the affairs of the company under the impression that non-filing of financial statements for three years is not a default and not an offence - Therefore, this provision has to be read as applicable to the situations where non-filing has started, at the most in the past and continuing while this enactment has come to into existence and also to future non-filing but not to be considered as applicable to the past acts for it is an established proposition that an Act has to be considered retroactive only when it has been explicitly mentioned in the Act - decided against petitioner. Whether the applicant can seek NCLT to declare that R4 & R5 cease to continue as directors in terms of Sections 164 (2) (a) r/w 167 (l)(a) of the Act 2013 in the CP filed u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956/u/s 241 & 242 of the Companies Act 2013 or not? - HELD THAT:- This applicant himself sought for holding AGMs for the years 2009-10 to 2013-2014, accordingly meetings were held, resolutions were passed by supplying all the statements after audit, therefore, if at all financial statements are not filed for the years mentioned, it can't be said as an act prejudicial to the interest of the applicants - this Bench has not found any merit in the argument the petitioner counsel taken out for declaring that R4&R5 ceased to continue directors of the company for it is in violation of the provision of law. Application dismissed.
|