IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29388 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- JOSE CHIRAYATH, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, MARATHAKARA.P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, THRIKKAKARA.P.O., KAKKANAD-682 021. 2. KURI LAND COMPANY PVT.LTD., HEAD OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, KURI LAND TOWER, MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29388 OF 2010 (W) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that by Ext.P1, he sought to resign from the Chairmanship of the 2nd respondent Company and that a copy of Ext.P1 was forwarded to the 1st respondent. According to him, the 1st respondent wrongly took Ext.P1 as resignation from the Directorship and not from Chairmanship, and that, on that basis, issued Ext.P2 requiring the 2nd respondent to comply with the formalities under Section 302(2) of the Companies Act by filing Form 32. 2. It is stated that coming to know of Ext.P2, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 letter to the 1st respondent pointing out the mistake in Ext.P2 and requesting him to issue an appropriate clarification. It is stated that there has not been any response to Ext.P3. At the same time, the Company is proceeding to convene its Annual General Meeting on 29/9/2010 and reduce the number of Directors, which will result in the petitioner vacating the post. It is on this allegation, the writ petition is filed. 3. Although the petitioner seeks a direction to the WPC No. 29388/10 :2 : Company not to proceed with Ext.P5, the notice to its shareholders, having regard to the fact that the Company is a Private Limited Company, which is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, no such direction can be issued. However taking note of the fact that by Ext.P3, petitioner has pointed out to the 1st respondent the mistake that is alleged to have been committed by him in Ext.P2, it is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent shall issue appropriate orders on Ext.P3. 4. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp