TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case was decided at all, either by the Division Bench or by the learned single judge, against whose order such appeal was preferred before the Division Bench. As such, the judgment cited on behalf of the respondent-authorities has no relevance to the instant case. Accordingly, the respondent-authorities acted palpably de hors the law in disqualifying the present petitioner from his status per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court dated November 22, 2019 passed in W. P. No. 21504(W) of 2019 (Chetan Chokhani v. Union of India [2020] 222 Comp Cas 230 (Cal)) and dated December 3, 2019, passed in W. P. No. 22071 (W) of 2019 (Dhiraj Kumar Mantri v. Union of India [2020] 222 Comp Cas 233 (Cal)) for the proposition that rule 14 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 pertains, on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor, as well. 4. A perusal of the said Division Bench order shows that the appeal therein had been preferred against an ad interim order, which was set out in its entirety in the Division Bench order itself. It is palpable from the said order of the learned single judge, which was impugned before the Division Bench, that the said order of the co-ordinate Bench pertained merely to exchange of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... binding on this court. 7. Accordingly, the respondent-authorities acted palpably de hors the law in disqualifying the present petitioner from his status pertaining to the petitioner's DIN in respect of all companies where he was a director and not merely the non-compliant company. 8. Accordingly, W. P. No. 24191 (W) of 2019 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the decision by whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
