News Details- (Get Professional Updates on Whatsapp, Msg on
8285393786) More
News
High Court notice to government over disqualification of shell companies' directors
The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Registrar of Companies (RoC) on a petition challenging the disqualification of more than one lakh directors of shell companies.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, last month, identified 1,06,578 directors of shell companies for disqualification.
While issuing notices to the ministry, the HC also stayed the disqualification of three such directors.
Advocate Manish Jain, counsel for the petitioners, challenged the vires, Latin for powers, of Section 164 (2) of Companies Act, 2013 which was notified in the year 2014.
Jain said that the section was wholly ambiguous, as it is unclear as to whether it is applicable only to existing directors or extends to all those who no longer are directors of the disputed shell companies.
“The vires of the section in question has been challenged,” Jain told ET. He argued that the ministry had violated the principles of natural justice in disqualifying the directors. For, he contended, the directors were not even issued show-cause notices before disqualifying them.
The petitioners have also contended that there was no provision under Section 164 (2) of Companies Act, 2013 for “immediate disqualification” of a director.
Jain said the section is “unconstitutional”, as it is apparently applicable even to those directors who were not the directors of defaulting companies at the time of default and have vacated or quit the officer prior to the default.
The government recently de-recognised 2.10 lakh companies that were dormant and utilised for dubious transactions. After de-recognition, the finance ministry directed banks to restrict operations of bank accounts of such companies by their directors or authorised representatives.
The ministry is further analysing the data of these companies from the Registrar of Companies, to identify the directors and the significant beneficial interest behind these companies.
Under Section 164 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013, a director in a company that has not filed financial statements or annual returns for three years in a row will not be eligible for re-appointment as a director in that or any other company for five years.#casansaar *Source - Economic Times)
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, last month, identified 1,06,578 directors of shell companies for disqualification.
While issuing notices to the ministry, the HC also stayed the disqualification of three such directors.
Advocate Manish Jain, counsel for the petitioners, challenged the vires, Latin for powers, of Section 164 (2) of Companies Act, 2013 which was notified in the year 2014.
Jain said that the section was wholly ambiguous, as it is unclear as to whether it is applicable only to existing directors or extends to all those who no longer are directors of the disputed shell companies.
“The vires of the section in question has been challenged,” Jain told ET. He argued that the ministry had violated the principles of natural justice in disqualifying the directors. For, he contended, the directors were not even issued show-cause notices before disqualifying them.
The petitioners have also contended that there was no provision under Section 164 (2) of Companies Act, 2013 for “immediate disqualification” of a director.
Jain said the section is “unconstitutional”, as it is apparently applicable even to those directors who were not the directors of defaulting companies at the time of default and have vacated or quit the officer prior to the default.
The government recently de-recognised 2.10 lakh companies that were dormant and utilised for dubious transactions. After de-recognition, the finance ministry directed banks to restrict operations of bank accounts of such companies by their directors or authorised representatives.
The ministry is further analysing the data of these companies from the Registrar of Companies, to identify the directors and the significant beneficial interest behind these companies.
Under Section 164 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013, a director in a company that has not filed financial statements or annual returns for three years in a row will not be eligible for re-appointment as a director in that or any other company for five years.#casansaar *Source - Economic Times)
Category : Companies Act | Comments : 0 | Hits : 1346
Get Free Daily Updates Via e-Mail on Income Tax, Service tax, Excise and Corporate law
Search News
News By Categories More Categories
- Income Tax Dept serves notices to salaried individuals for documentary proof to claim exemptions
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 - Update on allotment of Branches
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 - Update on Allotment of Branches
- Police Atrocities towards CA in Faridabad - Its Time to be Unite
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates 2019
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2022 Updates
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- NFRA Imposes Monetary penalty of Rs 1 Crore on M/s Dhiraj & Dheeraj
- ICAI notifies earlier announced CA exam dates despite pending legal challenge before SC
- NFRA debars Auditors, imposes Rs 50 lakh penalties for lapses in Brightcom, CMIL cases
- GST Important Update - Enhancement in the GST Portal
- NFRA Slaps Rs 5 lakh Penalty on Audit Firm for lapses in Vikas WSP Audit Case
- CBDT extends due date for filing Form 10A/10AB upto 30th June, 2024
- RBI comes out with FEMA regulations for direct listing on international exchange
- RBI directs payment firms to track high-value, fishy transactions during elections
- NCLT orders insolvency proceedings against Subhash Chandra
- Income Tax dept starts drive to dispose of appeals, 0.54 million at last count
- Payment of MCA fees –electronic mode-regarding
- Budget '11-12' Parliament Completes Approval Exercise
- Satyam restrained from operating its accounts
- ICICI a foreign firm, subject to FDI norms: Govt
- Maha expects Rs 15 crore entertainment tax revenue from IPL
- CAG blames PMO for not acting against Kalmadi
- No service tax on visa facilitators: CBEC
- Provision of 15-minutes reading and planning time allowance to the candidates of Chartered Accountants Examinations
- Companies Bill to be taken up in Monsoon Session
- File Service Tax Return in time as Maximum Penalty increased 10 times to Rs. 20000

Comments