TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one and that the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioners in striking off the name of the company from the register of companies cannot be sustained for this reason as well. On behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel disputes all these submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted, upon instructions from the Registrar of Companies, that notices under Section 248(1) have been sent to the Companies and the directors. It cannot be denied that the issues raised in this writ petition require adjudication and are of grave importance so far as the working of the spirit, intendment and object of the Companies Act, 2013, more specifically the manner in which the respondents would operate Sections 164 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. 2. Apart from this company, these petitioners have stated in the writ petition that they were directors in other companies as well. 3. This writ petition has been instituted in view of the notice dated 6th September, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 issued under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the respondents disqualifying the petitioners as Directors in the Companies wheresoever they may be Directors. This disqualification has resulted for the reason that there was default in submitting returns which were statutorily required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies with regard to the affairs of the Company in question, for a continuous period of three financial years. 4. The writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai v. M/s Essar Teleholdings Ltd. through its Manager which relies on Vatika (supra). 8. Drawing our attention to the mandatory requirement under Section 248(1), upon the Registrar of Companies to send a notice to the company and all directors of the company, it has been contended by the petitioners that such notice had to be issued and served in the manner prescribed by law i.e. in compliance with Rule 3(2) of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Registrar of Companies) Rules, 2016. The petitioners contend that this has not been done and that the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioners in striking off the name of the company from the register of companies cannot be sustained for this reason as well. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
