DATE: 25/07/2025
COURT: High Court of Karnataka
BENCH: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
FACTS:
The petitioners, who were appointed as
directors of M/s Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Private Limited in 2016,
approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the blocking and deactivation
of their Director Identification Numbers (DINs) by the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs (MCA). They discovered their disqualification when attempting to file
annual returns for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 through the MCA
portal, which displayed a message stating that the directors were disqualified
under the relevant provisions. Following this, the petitioners made multiple
representations to the Registrar of Companies (RoC) seeking reactivation of
their DINs to enable statutory compliance. Meanwhile, the MCA initiated an
inspection under Section 206(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, and subsequently,
the Regional Director issued a letter citing certain irregularities and seeking
explanations. A show-cause notice followed on 21.05.2019, to which the company
responded on 04.06.2019, but shortly after, the RoC filed a winding-up petition
before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The petitioners learned of their
disqualification only through these proceedings and argued that the MCA’s
action of blocking their DINs not only affected their association with M/s
Vihaan but also disqualified them from holding directorships in any other
company. They contended that the disqualification was arbitrary and without
prior notice or hearing, thus violating their fundamental rights under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Furthermore, they argued that even if the
disqualification had legal backing, the maximum duration permissible under law
is five years, which had lapsed in 2023, as the original disqualification order
dated back to 2018. They therefore sought a declaration from the Court
declaring the continued embargo on their DINs as unconstitutional and sought
restoration of their rights to act as directors.
ISSUES:
The key issues that arise for consideration
in this case are threefold. Firstly, the Court must determine whether, under
Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013, a director can be disqualified not only
from the company in which alleged violations have occurred but also from
holding directorship in any other company where no such allegations have been
made. This raises concerns about the scope and proportionality of
disqualification provisions under the Act.
Secondly, the Court must examine whether
the relevant authorities possess the power to extend the period of
disqualification beyond the statutory limit of five years. This involves
interpreting the legislative intent behind Section 164 and assessing whether
administrative actions can lawfully impose restrictions beyond the prescribed
duration. Finally, based on the resolution of these issues, the Court must
determine what relief or orders are appropriate in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the petitioners but clarified that their disqualification as
directors, imposed in 2018 under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, had
ended in 2023. The Court held that there was no legal basis to continue the
disqualification beyond the statutory period of five years, and therefore, no
further relief was required to be granted.
The Court interpreted Section 164(2)(b) of
the Companies Act, 2013, and emphasized that disqualification resulting from
non-compliance with statutory obligations such as failure to file financial
statements or repay deposits, automatically triggers a five-year bar on the
concerned directors. Importantly, this restriction applies not only to the
defaulting company but also to any other companies where such individuals serve
as directors. The Court clarified that all directors are jointly and severally
liable for compliance, and therefore, disqualification is not limited to only
the directly implicated directorships. Furthermore, the proviso to Section
167(1)(a) limits the vacation of office only to the company in default, which supports
the reading that disqualification under Section 164(2) may extend to other
companies, but vacating office applies only to the defaulting one.
With regard to the duration of
disqualification, the Court ruled unequivocally that Section 164(2) prescribes
a fixed disqualification period of five years from the date of default, with no
provision allowing for its extension. In the present case, since the
disqualification began in 2018, it automatically expired in 2023. The Court
rejected any implied authority of the Registrar of Companies or other
authorities to extend this period. Finally, the Court dismissed the
petitioners’ claim that such disqualification violated their fundamental rights
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It held that the disqualification
under Sections 164 and 167 constitutes a reasonable restriction on the right to
carry on trade or profession and is therefore constitutionally valid.
ANALYSIS:
This case underscores the importance of
statutory clarity and proportionality in the application of disqualification
provisions under corporate law. The Karnataka High Court interpreted Section
164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, to affirm that directors of a company can be
disqualified from all their directorships, whether or not the other companies
have defaulted, when the company in question fails to meet specified statutory
obligations. The Court justified this broad application by invoking the
principle of joint and several liability, ensuring that all directors are
equally accountable for a company's compliance. However, it simultaneously
recognized the limit imposed by law, clarifying that while disqualification may
have a wider reach, its duration cannot exceed five years. The ruling thus
balances the need for regulatory enforcement with protection against indefinite
penal consequences.
The judgment also provides clarity on the
temporal scope of disqualification, firmly ruling out any extension beyond the
five-year limit under Section 164(2). This stance ensures legal certainty for
affected individuals and prevents the misuse of administrative discretion to
prolong disqualifications. Importantly, the Court rejected the petitioners’
argument that the MCA’s actions violated their fundamental rights under Article
19(1)(g), holding that the restrictions imposed by Sections 164 and 167 are constitutionally
valid and constitute reasonable limitations on the freedom to conduct business
or hold office. By upholding the rule of law and emphasizing the separation of
legislative and executive functions, the Court’s decision reinforces that
disqualifications must strictly adhere to the limits defined by statute,
thereby safeguarding both corporate governance and individual rights.
info@adhwaitha.com