GAUTAM MEHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the action of the Registrar of Companies in including the petitioner in the list of Directors of Companies who had defaulted in filing Annual Returns.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, it was alleged as against the petitioner that he had suffered the disqualification under Sections 164 and 167 of the Companies Act, 2013 on and from November 1, 2017. He has submitted that, the respondent Authorities had published three lists of Directors involved in defaulting companies. He has relied upon the judgment and order dated November 4, 2019 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 9088 of 2018 (Mukut Pathak and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.) and submitted that, such judgment noticed three list of Directors being published. The second and the third list were set aside. The petitioner being similarly situated and circumstanced as that of the Directors involved in the second and third list set aside in Mukut Pathak and Ors. (supra), the petitioner is entitled to similar relief. He has submitted that, although an appeal is pending against Mukut Pathak and Ors. (supra), there is no stay granted by the Appeal Court.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 164 (2)(a) and Section 167(1) of the Act of 2013. He has submitted that the vires of the provisions of Section 164 and 167 of the Act of 2013 were upheld by the Karnataka High Court in (Yashodhara Shroof and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2019 ILR(Kar) 3768), the Bombay High Court in (Bom.) (Snowcem India Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 124 CompCas 161) and the Madras High Court in (G. Vasudevan v. Union of India and Ors.,2020 2 MadLJ 129). He has pointed out that, the provisions of Section 164(2) and Section 167(1) of the Act of 2013 were made operative by a notification dated April 4, 2014 from April 1, 2014. The provisos to the two sections were brought into force with effect from May 7, 2018. He has referred to Government Circular No. 8/2014 dated April 4, 2014 and submitted that, such circular clarified the position that the requirements of filings contained in the Act of 2013 will take effect from April 1, 2014 and that, the provisions of the new Act shall apply after April 1, 2014. According to him, the respondents have taken the stand that Section 164(2) and Section 167(1) would apply prospectively from April 1, 2014. According to him, there was no look back period for default. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Paragraph 54 of Mukut Pathak and Ors. (supra) and submitted that, the respondent authorities did not argue to the contrary before the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the respondent authority should not be permitted to argue to the contrary before this Court.