Mr. Vaddanam Rama Krishna v. Union Of India
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIV1BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER wRtT PET|TTON NO. 24464 0F 2020 Between:
1. Ir,4 r. Vaddanam Rama Krishna, Sio. Papeswara Rao Aged About 48 Years, Occ. Business, Rlo. 1-23-472 Pno.113 Bhoodevi Ngr, Venkata Puram, Secunderabad, Telangana State, lndia-50001 5
2. lvlr. Lakshmi Arundhathi Vaddanam, D/o. Guravaiah Naidu Paspuleti Aged About 43 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.l 13, Bhoodevi Nagar, H.No. 1-23-472, Venkatapuram, Secunderabad, Telangana State lndia-500015. ,.PETITIONERS AND Union of lndia, The Ministry of Corporate Affairs Represented by its Secretary A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 0'1 1, The Registrar of Companies, Telangana State,2nd Floor, Corporate Bhawan, GSI Post, Tattianaram, Nagole, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad - ,OO.IR?
aTONDENTS ) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or any other proceeding one in the nature of Writ of lVandamus declaring the action of respondents in deactivating the DIN Numbers 01687559, 01735730 for the disquaiification Period from 111112016 to 3111012021 of the Petitioners and restricting the petitioners from filing statutory returns, i.e.
, the annual returns of the Petitioners company as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary of the provisions of the Companies Act, 20 13 and Rule 1 1 of the Companies (Appointment of Directors) Rules, 2014, violative of the principle of natural justice besides violating the petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constjtution of lndia.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to restore the DIN numbers 0168755S, 01735730 for the d isq ualification Period from 111112016 to 3111O12021 of the Petitioners. So as to enable them to submit the annual returns and Financial Statements of the Petitioner's company.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AJAY BABU MANDADAPU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON.BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER , WRIT PETITION No.24464 OF 2O2O - ORDER:
The petitioners challenge their disqualiflcation from Directorship under Section 164(4 of the Companies Act, 2013, for the alleged default in filing financial statement/annual returns, and consequently, seek restoration of their Director Identification Numbers (DINs) viz., 01687559 and 01735730. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 24.09.2020, passed in W.P.No.16522 of 2020, which was disposed of in terms of the common order, dated 18.07.2019, passed in W.P.No.5422 ot 2018 and batch.
3. Sri Siripuram Keshava, learned counsel representing Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents, has fairly conceded that the order, dated 24.09.2020, passed in W.P.No.16522 of 2020, is similar to the common order, dated 18.07.2019, passed in W.P.No.5422 of 2Ol8 and batch. 4, The operative portion of the common order, dated 18.07.2019, passed in W.P.No.5422 of 2078 and batch, reads as u nd er:
"For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders in the writ petitions to the extent of disqualifying the petitioners under Section 164 (2) (a) of the Act and deactivation of their DINs, are set aslde, and the 2"d respondent is directed to activate the DINs of the
Dr.SA..J W.P.No.24464 ot2020 petitioners, enabling them to function as Directors other than in strike off comPanies.
It is made clear that this order lvill not preclude the 2'c respondent from taking appropriate action in accordance with law for violations as envisaged under Section 164 (2) of the Act, giving the said provision prospective effect from 01.04.2014 and for necessary action against DIN in case of violations of Rule 11 of the Rules.
It is also made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in striking oFf their companies under Sectlon 248 of the Act, they are at tibefty to avail alternative remedy under Section 252 of the Act.
All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. "
5.
In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed oF in terms of the common order, dated 18'07'2019, passed in W.P,No.5422 of 2018 and batch. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
SD/.L.LAKSHMI BABU aSStSrnr'rf REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY'
SECTI NO FFICER Ei: ffi :ts?!idlTf#[+l;#ffi {[:? iff ffi :ffi -" :,. ::: l' \ To, $1it'dit,ffi;#ilffi *x|s?ffi ilii'+i:'e*t}pr",::"::'""",,(opuc One CC to Sri NamavaraPl Two CD CoPies.
3.
4.
N/P
HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212020 dE sie 14:
( ^ oo .L 1 B JAil 2021 '\ i
ORDER
.::.i:.1ic\i WP.No.24464 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t <L/ i: