Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 806 - HC - Indian LawsDisqualification of petitioner's Director,s DIN - Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's Director Identification Number (DIN) would operate in respect of the defaulting company only or all other companies in respect of which the petitioner is a Director? - HELD THAT:- Section 164(2) of the 2013 Act, if construed in proper perspective, indicates that the legislature intentionally made a distinction in the language of the first part of the said sub‐section with the second part thereof. Sub‐section (2) of Section 164 starts with the expression "no person, who is or has been a Director of a company", which has committed defaults specified therein, while the sub‐section ends with the expression "shall be eligible to be re‐appointed as a Director of that company or appointed in other company for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do so" - a specific distinction is made in the sub‐section between the directorship of a person of a defaulting company, in respect of which the eligibility of 're‐ appointment' as a Director has been prevented, whereas, as regards other companies, the term 'appointed', as opposed to 're‐appointed' has been deliberately used, thereby indicating only fresh appointments. There could not be any other meaning attributed to the user of the terms 're‐appointed' and 'appointed' in two parts of the said sub‐section, in respect of directorship in the defaulting company and in respect of other companies respectively. Section 167 of the 2013 Act and the proviso to sub‐section (1)(a) thereof shows that the said proviso came into force after disqualification of the petitioner by the respondents. Hence, the proviso is not applicable to cases where the disqualification took place before enactment of the said amendment - Applicability of Rule 14 of the 2014 Rules pertains ex facie to the company at default and not to other companies and, as such, it cannot be mandatory for the Director to comply with the provisions thereof in respect of all other companies of which she/he is a Director but which are not at default, but in respect of defaulting company only. The disqualification of the DIN of the respective petitioners in respect of other companies, than the company in respect of which the default has been allegedly committed, is set aside - petition disposed off.
|