division judge bench headed by Chief Justice A.P. Sahi held that apart from the fact that the AQD Rules do not empower the ROC to deactivate the DIN, we find that such deactivation would also be contrary to Section 164(2) read with 167(1) of CA 2013 inasmuch as the person concerned would continue to be a director of the Defaulting Company.

Logo
HEADLINES
GST Evasion: CA Final Student arrested for creating Fake Invoices to generate fake Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.50.24 Cr
Leasehold Rights can’t be computed as Capital Gains in respect of transactions in land or building under Section 50C: ITAT [Read Order]
18% GST applicable on Supply of Soft Beverages or Aerated Water by the Restaurant: AAR [Read Order]
Madras High Court quashes ROC action deactivating DINs of all disqualified Directors [Read Judgment]
Cabinet approves Mutual Recognition Agreement between ICAI and MICPA, Malaysia
Cabinet approves MoU between ICAI and CPA, Papua New Guinea
GST: ITC to be restricted on Medicines used in Supply of Health Care Services provided to patients, says AAR [Read Order]
SEBI notifies key investment team of the Manager of Alternative Investment Fund [Read Notification]
CBDT issues directions for exercising the power of survey u/s 133A of Income Tax Act, 1961 [Read Order]
Pure Consultancy Services provided to local bodies are Exempted but 18% GST applicable on Consultancy Services provided to private individuals, says AAR [Read Order]

CORPORATE LAWS | HEADLINES | NEWSLETTER | TOP STORIES
Madras High Court quashes ROC action deactivating DINs of all disqualified Directors [Read Judgment]

October 22, 2020 10:32 am| By : Team Taxscan
Madras High Court – quashes – ROC – action – deactivatin – DINs – disqualified Directors – taxscan

The Madras High Court held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) is not empowered to deactivate the Director Identification Number (DIN) under Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014 (AQD).

The batch of writ appeals were filed arising out of a common order whereby the separate writ petitions filed by each Appellant to quash the respective disqualification by the ROC and for consequential reactivation of the DIN or permission for appointment or reappointment as director were dismissed.

As regards the deactivation of the DIN, the learned single Judge concluded that the DIN can only exist during the period when an individual holds office as a director and, therefore, the deactivation of the DIN is a logical corollary of disqualification, which was challenged.

As a corollary, it follows that if a person is a director of five companies, which may be referred to as companies A to E, if the default is committed by company A by not filing financial statements or annual returns, the said director of company A would incur disqualification and would vacate office as director of companies B to E.

However, the said person would not vacate office as director of company A. If such person does not vacate office and continues to be a director of company A, it is necessary that such person continues to retain the DIN. In this connection, it is also pertinent to point out that it is not possible to file either the financial statements or the annual returns without a DIN.

Consequently, the director of Defaulting Company A, in the example, would be required to retain the DIN so as to make good the deficiency by filing the respective documents.

The division judge bench headed by Chief Justice A.P. Sahi held that apart from the fact that the AQD Rules do not empower the ROC to deactivate the DIN, we find that such deactivation would also be contrary to Section 164(2) read with 167(1) of CA 2013 inasmuch as the person concerned would continue to be a director of the Defaulting Company.

Therefore, the court concluded that the DIN of the respective directors shall be reactivated within 30 days of the date of receipt of a copy of this order.