Case Law Details
Satya Narayan Banik Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court)
This Court is of the view that the object and purposes of Section 164 and 167, as amended is to ensure probity and the highest standard of governance in Companies both public and private. A failure to file balance sheet and the annual returns for three consecutive years amounts to deliberate and wilful negligence. The public at large dealing with such companies cannot be put to the uncertainty, whim and fancy of recalcitrant directors. After all the requirements and compliances mandated under the Companies Act, are not only for the benefit of the shareholders of a particular company but also for the public at large, which rely upon such compliances, in assessing the conduct of and in deciding their relations with such companies.
16. This Court is also of the view that the provisions of the 2013 Act have an overriding effect on the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Director) rules of 2014. The said rules can, therefore, not have any manner of application or confer in right on the petitioners, insofar as their disqualification as directors.
17. On the power of the ROC to deactivate the DIN of the petitioners it would be necessary to go into whether the provisos to the two Section 164(2) and 167(1), introduced subsequently by amendment. The issue has been discussed at length in the Yashodhara decision (supra). This Court cites with agreement and approval the said views taken at paragraphs 195 to 200 of the said decision.
“195. I find considerable force in the argument of petitioners’ counsel as, on 01.11.2016, when the petitioners were disqualified, while they had to vacate the office of the director, it necessarily referred to the defaulting company under Section 164(2) of the Act. But, realizing the fact that if all the directors in the defaulting company had to vacate office, then such Board of Directors would be bereft of directors and would lead to an absurd situation, the proviso was inserted to the effect that a director of a defaulting company shall not vacate office of the director in the defaulting company. Therefore, the said portion of the proviso could be construed to be clarificatory in nature and therefore, would have a retrospective effect.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
