w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another v/s Union of India & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- SANJAY CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16009GJ1999PLC035814

Company & Directors' Information:- A. KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201UP1995PTC018833

Company & Directors' Information:- S C SHARMA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1948PTC001507

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909WB1946PTC014540

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45203DL1964PTC117149

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1986PTC041038

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY LTD. [Active] CIN = U36900WB1927PLC005621

Company & Directors' Information:- SANJAY KUMAR & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U23109WB1990PTC048129

Company & Directors' Information:- K P SHARMA (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1988PTC045569

Company & Directors' Information:- P KUMAR & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105WB1998PTC087242

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2017PTC220657

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR L P G PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U23201DL2001PTC113203

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012750

Company & Directors' Information:- J. R. SHARMA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24211DL1966PTC004602

Company & Directors' Information:- M KUMAR AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1982PTC014823

Company & Directors' Information:- M K SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74994DL1982PTC014090

Company & Directors' Information:- B N KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52341WB1941PTC010643

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA AND SHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC276949

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA & CO. PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1949PTC018064

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999KA1942PTC000292

    Case No. WP(C) 3159 of 2020

    Decided On, 24 August 2020

    At, High Court of Gauhati

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

    For the Petitioner: S.K. Agarwal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Asstt. S.G.I.



Judgment Text


1. Heard Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are the directors of a company namely Gicholin Mineral Trading Private Limited having its registered office at Itanagar, Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh.

3. Being the directors of the company, the Directors Identification Number (DIN), being 03122502 and 0233541, were issued in favour of the petitioners by the respondent No. 2. Under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 no person who is or has been a director of a company which has not filed its financial statements or annual reports for any continuous period of three financial years be eligible to be reappointed 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.

4. The first proviso to Section 164(2)(a) provides that where a person is appointed as a director of a company which is in default, amongst others, of requirement of Section 164(2) (a), shall not incur the disqualification for a period of 6 months from the date of his appointment.

5. The provisions of Section 164(2) is extracted below:

(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) has failed to repay the deposits accepted by it or pay interest thereon or to redeem any debentures on the due date or pay interest due thereon or pay any dividend declared and such failure to pay or redeem continues for one year or more,

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.

[Provided that where a person is appointed as a director of a company which is in default of clause (a) or clause(b), he shall not incur the disqualification for a period of six months from the date of his appointment].

6. It is stated that in exercise of its power under Section 164(2)(a) a list of defaulting directors were published by the Union of India in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs through its Secretary and the Registrar of Companies at Guwahati. The name of the petitioners appeared in the said list of the directors who were identified as disqualified under Drive-ii and not filed the financial statement for three years. The name of the petitioners appear at Serial No.167 of the said list.

7. Being aggrieved by the inclusion of the petitioners in the said list of the directors who were identified as disqualified, this instant writ petition is instituted with the following prayers:

“In the facts and circumstance of the present case it is the case it is therefore respectfully prayed that your Lordship’s may graciously pleased to issue notice to the Respondents, call for the Records of the case and issue a Rule Calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other writ, Order or Direction of like nature shall not be issued by directing the Respondents more particularly the Respondents No.2 to re-activate the DSC and DIN of the petitioners which was deactivated in purported exercise of power conferred under the Section 164 of the companies Act, 2013 and as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other writ, Order or direction of like nature shall not be issued by directing the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent No.2 not to give effect of the impugned Disqualified Directors in respect of others companies except the defaulting company and after cause or causes that may be shown by the Respondent Authorities and after going through the records of the case and after hearing the parties Your Lordship’s may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice by granting full relief/reliefs to the petitioners.

In the interim it is respectfully prayed that your Lordship’s may be graciously pleased to direct the Respondent Authority more particularly the Respondent No.2 herein to re-activate the DSC (Digital Signature Certificate) and DIN (Director’s Identification Number) immediately and/or may pass such other or further order(s) as your Lordship’s may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice by granting full relief/reliefs to the petitioners.”

8. From a reading of the prayer it is apparent that the petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 not to consider the petitioner as a disqualified director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and for a further direction to change the status of the petitioner in the records of the respondent No. 2 from the list of disqualified directors and consequently unfreeze the Directors Identification Number (DIN) and the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of the petitioners.

9. The pre-requisite of issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus is that there must be a legal right of the litigant, such right must be violated by the respondents and upon the right being violated, there must be a representation for removal of such violation and upon consideration thereof, such request for removing the violation be refused.

10. The said principle of issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus is of a fundamental importance inasmuch as, when a writ court issues a writ in the nature of mandamus, it takes upon itself to determine as to whether the litigant had a legal right of his own making it entitled to a direction as claimed for. In the absence of the principle being followed, it is difficult for the writ court to arrive at its conclusion whether the legal right claimed for by the litigant is actually present or such right is being merely being claimed for by the litigant.

11. In the instant case, the petition is devoid of any material which may indicate as to a legal right in favour of the petitioners against being removed as a disqualified director or to restore the Director Identification Number (DIN) and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of the petitioners so as to enable the Court to determine their legal right, if any. In the circumstance, we are of the view it would be appropriate for the petitioners to make a representation before the Registrar of Companies, Guwahati being the respondent No.2 as regards their claim for continuing with the Director Identification Number (DIN) and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) as well as to exclude their name from the list of disqualified directors. Upon such representation being made, the Registrar of Companies shall pass a detailed reasoned order as regards the entitlement of the petitioners to continue with the Directors Identification Number (DIN) and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) and to get themselves removed from the list of disqualified directors. In doing so, a hearing be also given to the petitioners so as to enable them to present their case before the Registrar. Upon such application being made, it is directed that the Registrar of Companies shall pass a reasoned order within a period of 15 days from such application being submitted. It is provided that the petitioners shall file such applications, if so

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

advised, within a period 7 days from today. Till the expiry of 7 days from today, the respondent authorities shall unfreeze the Directors Identification Number (DIN) and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) issued in favour of the petitioners. However, if such application is not filed, the continuation of the order to unfreeze their Directors Identification Number (DIN) and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) shall remain withdrawn and the Registrar of Companies shall be at liberty to take any action against the petitioners. In the event, application is filed the order to unfreeze the Directors Identification Number (DIN) and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) shall continue till the Registrar of Companies may pass a reasoned order. 12. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-10-2020 For the Applicant: Sudeep Kumar, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondents: ----------- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-10-2020 G. Mahesh. & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
16-10-2020 A. Prasad & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
16-10-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, namely Shree Rajeev Kumar, District Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-10-2020 Umesh Kumar Sharma Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
15-10-2020 Senior Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Rajesh Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-10-2020 Zilingo Pte. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
15-10-2020 Nitesh Kumar Chaudhary @ Nitesh Kumar Versus The Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Collections & Another Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-10-2020 Gautam Mehra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-10-2020 Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited Versus Piyush Kant Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
14-10-2020 Veenesh Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-10-2020 SGT Aadesh Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-10-2020 Rajeev Kumar Versus State High Court of Delhi
14-10-2020 T. Kavinraj Versus Union of India Represented by its Ministry of Human Resource and Development Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-10-2020 Dr. Akshee Batra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
13-10-2020 Rajiv Saxena Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
12-10-2020 Sushil Kumar Pandey & Others Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
12-10-2020 Mahasemam Trust, A Public Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, Dr. Prabu Vairavan Prakasam Versus Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-10-2020 Shalam Ali Versus Union of India (Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-10-2020 Mantu Kumar Singh @ Chandr Kant Singh Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-10-2020 Naresh Kumar Sinha, Company Secretary, M/s Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Jeevan Bharti, New Delhi & Others Versus Union of India Rep. By The Labour Enforcement Officer Central Tripura West & Another High Court of Gauhati
12-10-2020 Riddhima Singh Through: Her Father Shailendra Kumar Singh Versus Central Board Of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Delhi
09-10-2020 K.G. Jijish Kumar Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Others High Court of Kerala
09-10-2020 Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporation Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2020 Dr. S. Anand Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-10-2020 Karan Yadav alias Karan Kumar Yadav Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-10-2020 Sanjay Mahadeo Japkar Versus State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Department of Planning (E.G.S. Division) Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-10-2020 Akul Bhargava & Others Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
09-10-2020 Wing Commander Mallikarjun Gourimath Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-10-2020 Chilukuri Prasannanjaneya Reddy Versus Union of India High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-10-2020 Sandip Kumar Sinha Versus The State of Bihar & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-10-2020 Gayathri Senthil Kumar Versus The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-10-2020 Raja Mahesh Kumar M.E. (Civil-Structural) Versus The Secretary to Govt., Housing & Urban Development Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-10-2020 A. Kumar Versus Financial Intelligence Unit – India, New Delhi & Another Versius Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-10-2020 Deepak Kumar Ganesh Rai Manto Versus State (Through Police Inspector) In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
07-10-2020 Yathish Kumar @ Yathish Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
07-10-2020 Saurav Kumar @ Sahgal Pratap Singh @ Saurav Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-10-2020 V. Sivaraj Versus Senthil Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Ramesh Versus Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Government (Revenue) Government of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Kaushal Mishra @ Kaushal Kumar Mishra Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
06-10-2020 Sapat Khan Versus Union of India Through Intelligence Officer High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-10-2020 Parul Majumdar Laskar & Others Versus The Union of India to Be Rep. By The Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
01-10-2020 Universal Cables Limited & Others Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-10-2020 Universal Cables Limited & Others Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 M/s. Arun Kumar Kamal Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Selected Marble Home & Others Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 R. Kishore Kumar Versus The Chief Inspector of Factories, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 M/s. Kashmir Wine & Provision Store Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
30-09-2020 Ajay Kumar Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
30-09-2020 Prem Kumar & Others Versus Abhimanyu Arora High Court of Delhi
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 M.L. Ganesh & Others Versus CA V. Venkata Siva Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Rohit Kumar Rawat Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-09-2020 Anandha Kumar Versus Sathya High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 M/s ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi Versus The Union of India through Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT, Government of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-09-2020 Ashok Vishwakarma Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
28-09-2020 Sanjay Goyal & Another Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
28-09-2020 Union of India The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Guwahati Versus On The Death of Baneswar Das His Legal Heir Manju Das & Others High Court of Gauhati
25-09-2020 Ashok Kumar Swarnkar Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-09-2020 Ashok Kumar Swarnkar Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-09-2020 Asha Mukherjee Versus Union of India & others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-09-2020 Kumar Versus M.P. Selvaraj & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 M. Umapathy & Another Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour-I, (Registrar of Trade Union), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 P.S. Dilip Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
22-09-2020 Akshay Kumar Jaiswal Versus The State of Assam, Rep. By The PP, Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
22-09-2020 M/s. Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-09-2020 The Visnagar Taluka Co-Operative Purchase & Sales Union Limited (Deleted) Versus District Registrar, Co-Op. Societies High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-09-2020 Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla & Another Versus National Law School of India University, Bengaluru & Others Supreme Court of India
21-09-2020 M. Rajalakshmi Versus Union of India Represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Revenue & Disaster Management Govt. of Union Territory of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) & Another High Court of Delhi
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Senthil Kumar Versus State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pasupathypalayam Police Station, Karur Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-09-2020 Krishna Kumar Yadav Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise Act, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-09-2020 Arun Sharma Versus Roxann Sharma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 G. Saravana Kumar @ Yeshwanth Versus The State by the Inspector of Police, W-8, All Women Police Station, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League, Represented by its General Secretary, K.A.M. Muhammed Abubacker, Chennai Versus M.G. Dawood Miakhan & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-09-2020 Hadula Sanjay Kachrabhai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-09-2020 K. Murugan: Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2547/15 T. Velladurai, Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2548/15, Versus The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Alangulam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-09-2020 Vaibhav Prasad Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2020 Priyamvada Devi Birla (Dec.) & Others Versus Ajay Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-09-2020 Mahendra Kumar Lalan Versus State of M. P. & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
18-09-2020 Mukul Mittal & Another Versus Union of India Through its Secretary & Another High Court of Delhi
18-09-2020 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Manoj Kumar Versus The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Govt. of Bihar Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-09-2020 Neetu Kumar Nagaich Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others Supreme Court of India
16-09-2020 Atmesh Kumar Roy Versus Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-09-2020 P. Bharat Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Dinesh Kumar Versus Priyanka & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-09-2020 Firoz Iqbal Khan Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
15-09-2020 Sandip Kumar Bajaj & Another Versus State Bank of India & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-09-2020 Naresh Kumar Rai Versus State of Sikkim, Through Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok & Another High Court of Sikkim
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras