SATYA NARAYAN BANIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners are aggrieved by cessation of office as directors of one M/s. Hahnemann International Pvt. Ltd. The disqualification happened by operation of Sec. 164 (2) for not filing balance sheets and annual returns for a continuous period of three years from the year 2014-15. The ROC has also deactivated the Director Identification Number of the petitioners for which the petitioners are aggrieved by. The petitioners have advanced a three-fold argument challenging such disqualification.

(2.) A large number of decisions have been cited by Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Learned counsel for the petitioner, Viz. M. K. Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan Vs. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporation Affairs and Another of a Division Bench of Madras High court reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Madras 2958; Jai Shankar Agrahari Vs. Union of India reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Allahabad 24 and Imraj Ali Molla Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Calcutta 669.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents Mr. Avinash Kankani and Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri argued that the petitioners have not claimed that they are directors of any other companies hence the effects of Sec. 167 (1)(a) cannot prejudice the petitioners. It is argued that the excuses given by the petitioners for non-filing of balance sheet and annual returns from the year ending 31/3/2015 are not convincing. The reason given by the petitioners is that they had left the job of filing returns and balance sheet to one Moinak Kundu, an accountant of their company. The said accountant did not file the same despite having filed Income Tax and GST returns. The petitioners have not disclosed any action taken against the said Moinak Kundu in this regard. The illness of the petitioner No. 2 is also cited as a ground for not filing the annual returns and balance sheet from the year ending 2015.