TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for hearing on January 14, 2020. - W. P. No. 21504(W) of 2019 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2019 - Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. Mr. Saptarshi Banerjee, Mr. A. K. Upadhyay, Mr. Somesh Ghosh... for the petitioner. Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty, Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee...for the Registrar of Companies. JUDGMENT Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's Director Identification Number (DIN) was deactivated by the respondent no. 2, on the ground of certain alleged defaults made by the petitioner in respect of a particular company. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that such DIN pertains to the directorship of the petitioner in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Supreme Court, this Court ought not to grant any stay order in a similar matter. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cites an order of the Telangana High Court, wherein apparently it was recorded that the Assistant Solicitor General of India appeared and conceded that, pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Telangana High Court, the DIN of the petitioners be restored and interim orders of the said Court are complied with. It is argued by the petitioner that several High Courts have been passing similar orders staying the action taken by the respective Registrars of Companies and as such, a similar order ought to be passed in the present case as well. A perusal of Section 164(2) of the 2013 Act, makes it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner by the respondents. As such, the said proviso is not applicable to the present case. So far as the applicability of Rule 14 of the 2014 Rules is concerned, the same pertains, on the face of it, to the company at default and not to other companies and as such, it cannot be mandatory for the director-in-question to comply with the provisions thereof in respect of all other companies of which she/he is a director but which are not at fault, but in respect of the defaulting company only. In such view of the matter, the petitioner has prima facie satisfied this Court that the respondents have acted de hors the law and natural justice in abrogating the DIN of the petitioner in respect of other companies than the company allegedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
