No Removal of Disqualification of Directors – Says Supreme Court- ROC Remove Disqualification
Channel: R V Seckar
Date: 2020-07-07

No Removal of Disqualification of Directors – Says Supreme Court- ROC Remove Disqualification 

No Removal of Disqualification of Directors – Says Supreme Court upholding the SLP petition filed by MCA during January 2020.

-  However , ROC Ahmedabad Removes disqualification of a director due to order Gujarat High Court 
However , on 2 July 2020 , MCA , removed the disqualification of a director in pursuance to the order High Court of Gujarat. 
What is Disqualification of a Director ?
Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013(3) provides the circumstances under which a Director can be disqualified :
“(2) No person who is or has been a director of a company which—
(a) has not filed financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years; or
(b) … ;
shall be eligible to be re-appointed as a director of that company or appointed in other company for a period of five years from the date on which the said company fails to do so.”

MCA notification for disqualification of Directors 
In 2017, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) passed a notification vide which all the redundant companies had to be strike off and the directors of these companies were held to be disqualified. 

However, many High Courts ruled against this.
Bombay High Court on Disqualification of Directors
A division bench comprising of judicial members for hearing the petition in regards to Disqualification of Director due to failure to file an annual return. Following orders were passed by the bench of judicial:
• Companies which are struck off under the provisions of section 248 of the act, its directors are not stated to be disqualified. Section 248 gives the power to the Registrar of Companies to remove the name of companies.
• Writ petitions are allowed for the cases in which the director is disqualified for financial years before 1st April 2014 and is reckoned for continuous three financial years.
• The writ petition is allowed for disqualification occurred under the provisions of old act, i.e., Companies Act 1956
• DIN of those directors will be restored whose disqualification is squashed by this court
• Those disqualifications occurred for continuous three financial years after 1st April 2014 remains disqualified
What Various High Court Observed on Disqualification?
Many writ petition was filed against these MCA orders in several high courts in which judgments were passed which are enumerated for you:
• Hyderabad High Court order to restore DIN of directors so that they can file their pending annual return
• Bombay high court passed an interim order under which directors were no longer disqualified
• Bombay high court directed the ROC to accept physical documents by struck off companies to treat such application as voluntary striking off.
• Similar such judgments were passed by the Delhi high court and Rajasthan high court as well.
Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court 
However, recently the Supreme Court has admitted the petition by MCA and stayed the orders passed by the High Court in about 2000 cases relating to this matter.
During January 2020, the Supreme Court of India has passed an order, upon Special Leave Petition of the MCA, upholding the decision of MCA and squashing the decision of all the High Courts.

On July 2 , 2020 , MCA Removed Disqualification of a Director by the order of Gujarat High Court. 
MCA UPDATE   July 02, 2020

List Of Disqualified Directors U/S 164 (2)(A) Dated 02 July 2020
(अयोग्य निदेशकों की सूची धारा 164 (2) (ए ) दिनांक 02 जुलाई 2020) 

http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/DisqualifiedDirectorsAhmedabadSearchable_02072020.pdf
Office of Registrar Of companies, Ahmedabad

♦️ 10512 RECORDS (as Sr no 236 has been removed from disqualification by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat )
In pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat , the name of the director Mr. NIMON BISWAL has been removed from the list of disqualified directors.
🍒 ROC AHMEDABAD
💎 522 PAGES
🏹  Disqualification period
01.11.2016 to 31.10.2021

The company could not get its Annual Accounts of 31.3.2018 & 2019 audited and hold AGM as per Sec 96 of Companies Act and 31.3.2019 as the petition for removal of Statutory  Auditors was pending before RD. The ROC rejected the application for extension of time for holding AGM for 2018 and 2019. Hence CP was filed under .Sec 97 of the Co Act before NCLT Kolkata seeking extension of  time for holding AGM which has been  extended and further directed the company to get Annual Accounts finalised and approved for 2018 and 2019 and give 21 days notice to shareholders either in writing or through electronics mode  to every Director and Auditor with statement of  business to be transacted. Nihar Ranjan Half at Vs Tennovus Research & Diagnostic P Ltd MANU/NC/5822/2020.