NAVEEN BHATNAGAR Vs. SUDARSHAM CONSOLIDATED LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Sec. 10F of the Companies Act, 1956(hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1956) challenging order dtd. 12/9/2013 passed by the Company Law Board, Northern Region Bench, New Delhi.

(2.) Vide the impugned order dtd. 12/9/2013, the Company Law Board on an application filed by the appellant seeking a direction upon the respondent- Company to file Form 32 of the appellant with effect from 17/9/2010, the date he had tendered his resignation as Director of the respondent-Company. The Company Law Board has, while declining the prayer of the appellant, held that the appellant has automatically ceased to be the Director of the respondent- Company in terms of Sec. 283(1)(g) of the Act of 1956 on and from 1/7/2011 on the ground that he has not attended the Board meetings subsequent to September, 2010. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondent-Company to file Form 32 in respect of cessation of the Directorship of the appellant with effect from 1/7/2011 within thirty days and make necessary corrections in the statutory records.

(3.) It appears that the appellant was appointed as a Director of the respondent-Company on 6/2/2009 and on 17/9/2010, he addressed a resignation letter to the Board of Directors of the respondent-Company, which was duly received and acknowledged by the respondent-Company. On 21/9/2010, a communication was addressed by one of the Directors of the respondent-Company, namely, S. M. Z. Naqvi to the appellant informing him that his resignation as on 17/9/2010 has been noted in the records of the Company and that he has been relieved with effect from 21/9/2010. The appellant was also informed that his Form 32 will be filed with the Registrar of the Companies accordingly. It seems that when the respondent-Company did not submit Form 32 with the Registrar of the Companies, the appellant made various representations to the respondent-Company as well as to the Registrar of the Companies in this regard but no action was taken in the matter. Ultimately the appellant approached the Company Law Board seeking a direction upon respondent-Company to submit Form 32 of the appellant with the Registrar of the Companies, which prayer was declined by the Company Law Board vide the impugned order and instead it was held that the appellant has automatically ceased to be the Director with effect from 1/7/2011.