Company Law
Cases
Disqualifying directors from office on failure to submit returns is
not ultra vires Constitution, rules High Court
Yashodhara Shroff v. Union of India [2019] 106 taxmann.com 297
(Karnataka)
In
the
instant
case,
the
petitioners
challenged
the
list
published
by
the
MCA
in^
September
2017
whereby
nearly
three
lakh
directors
were
disqualified
u/s^
164 ( 2 )(
a
)
and
section
167 ( 1 )(
a
)
for
failing
to
file
annual
returns
and
state
ments -
for
a
period
of
three
consecutive
years.
The
Petitioners
argued
that
section
164 ( 2 )
of
the
Act
is
retrospective
in
effect
inasmuch^
as
three
continuous
years
of
non-filing
of
financial
statements
or
annual^
returns
could
extend
to
even
prior
to
1 - 4 - 2014
(on
which
date
the
Act
came^
into
force)
however,
the
proviso
of
section
167 ( 1 )(
a
)
came
into
force
with^
effect
from
May
5 ,
2018.
The
petitioners
argued
that
section
164 ( 2 )
of
the
Act
is
ultra vires
Article
14
and/or^
Article
19 ( 1 )(
g
)
of
the
Constitution
of
India
as
being
manifestly
arbitrary.
The
petitioner
noted
that
the
MCA
had
gone
beyond
the
law
and
worked
ar
bitrary. -
As,
the
due
date
of
filing
the
returns
and
financial
statement
was
not
over^
yet
and
in
the
meantime,
it
published
the
list
of
disqualified
directors
on
Sept.,^
2017.
The
High
Court
ruled
that
the
proviso
of
section
167 ( 1 )(
a
)
of
the
Companies
Act,
2013
is
prospective
in
nature,
it
should
not
looked
in
retrospective.
Therefore,
any^
disqualification
of
director
arises
prior
to
7 - 5 - 2018
(date
of
enforcement
of^
provision
of
Section
167 ( 1 )(
a
)
would
not
compelled
the
director
to
vacate
the^
office
in
all
companies
in
which
the
disqualified
director
is
a
director.
The
disqualified^
director
would
continue
the
position
of
director
in
other
company.
On^
the
contrary,
those
who
were
disqualified
after
7 - 5 - 2018
would
liable
to
vacate^
the
office
in
other
companies
as
well.
Weekly Browser
A Weekly Guide to Statutory Changes & Landmark
Rulings in the field of an Insolvency & Company Laws
