Facts -
- The petitioner has been unable to utilise his Director Identification Number or his Digital Signature Certificates ever since the company in which he served as Director was removed from the Register by the Registrar of Companies. In addition, he has been unable to use his Director Identification Number. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the questions that were presented here stand settled in favour of the petitioners in light of the judgement that was issued by a learned Judge of the Court in the case of Anjali Bhargava and Others vs. Union of India and Others.
- After weighing the breadth and depth of Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 and related provisions, the court reached the following conclusion in Anjali Bhargava. Four types of Directors have petitioned the courts to reverse their disqualification and restore their DIN/DSC status. Directors who have been prohibited from serving as directors of the defaulting firm and other corporations prior to May 7, 2018 a) A director's office would become empty in all businesses if he or she is disqualified as a director of the defaulting firm, as per the proviso to Section 167 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013. However, the aforementioned provision was not put into force until May 7th, 2018.
- As per the proviso to Section 167 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013, once a director is disqualified qua one company i.e., the defaulting company, the office of the said director would become vacant in all companies. The said proviso, has, however, come into effect only on 7th May, 2018. In Mukut Pathak V. UOI it was held that this proviso cannot have retrospective effect and would only apply if the disqualification took place after 7th May 2018.
Arguments by Petitioner -
- The present petitioners are members of the Category (a). In light of Mukut Pathak (above), the Petitioners' DIN/DSC in respect of Talent Scanner Pvt. Ltd. would be subject to reactivation, and they would not be considered suspended from the post of directors in Talent Scanner Pvt. Ltd.
- Specifically with respect to Bhargava Films Pvt. Ltd., the Petitioners may submit the necessary paperwork and ask for a delay to be waived if that is allowed under the rules.
Arguments by respondents-
- However, learned counsel for the Registrar of Companies has recommended that the Court take into account a decision made by a Division Bench in Anamika Devi vs. Union of India. In that case, the Court noted that a disqualification of a director that had occurred in September 2017 was challenged by way of a writ petition preferred in 2020, and it had observed that the petition suffered from apparent laches and since the petitioner there had failed to raise a c.
- The present petitioners are members of the (a). In light of Mukut Pathak (above), the Petitioners' DIN/DSC in respect of Talent Scanner Pvt. Ltd. would be subject to reactivation, and they would not be considered suspended from the post of directors in Talent Scanner Pvt. Ltd. Specifically with respect to Bhargava Films Pvt. Ltd., the Petitioners may submit the necessary paperwork and ask for a delay to be waived if that is allowed under the rules.
Judgement-
- In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no justification to hold against the petitioner in light of the judgement rendered in Anamika Devi.
- In view of the aforesaid, the ends of justice would warrant the instant writ petition along with the pending application being disposed of with directions being framed to the second respondent to duly consider the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement of the Director Identification Number and Digital Signature Certificates held by him bearing in mind the law as laid down in Anjali Bhargava.
- Conclusion by the Registrar of Companies must be done with expedition and preferably within a period of one month.