A Layman's Guide to Removal of Directors Disqualification [High Court Route] By MUDS Management


The Companies Act of 2013 bought some strict provisions for non-complying companies and their directors. The Registrar of Companies reserves the right to remove the company’s name from RoC’s list and order disqualification of directors for a period of five years If the company fails to meet the compliance norms set by the government. This could lead to careers of individuals working as directors for the corporate come to a standstill.

Why Directors Face Disqualification?

Director disqualification due to any reason can prove to be a major roadblock in any directors’ career. The Companies Act of 2013 had stricter provisions for non-compliance.  One of these provisions about directors can be understood as,

“Any company can have one or more number of directors working full-time or Part-time. All these directors will be fall under the category of OFFICERS and strict actions will be taken against them if their companies fail to abide by the set rules.”

The directors of the company are responsible for the smooth operation of the company under their direction and thus they are responsible for any action taken by the company that leads to failure in complying with the directions of Government. Under the Companies Act of 2013, directors can be disqualified on the following grounds,

  • If the company of the director has not filed its financial statements and annual returns for a period of three years consecutively. 

  • If the company has failed to repay the deposit made to it or pay interest on those deposits. 

  • If the organisation fails to redeem any debentures on their due date or fails to pay the interest due.

  • Failure to pay the declared dividend and continuing so for a period of one year or more could also lead to the disqualification of the company’s director.  

Removal of Directors’ Disqualification

Initially, it was thought that there was no option available for a disqualified director apart from waiting for the five years exile period to end to resume directorship work. However, the other option was that if a company is revived after being struck off from RoC then the directors can also apply for the revival of their role. There were about 2.4 companies that were axed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) using the Companies Act in 2017. These companies started exploring the options for their revival and the directors hoped to get their DIN reactivated. When the MCA came up with the Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018, the company’s directors hoped to get their company revived without paying heavy penalties and apply for their disqualification removal.

CODS, 2018

A company’s director is required to file all the financial details of the company with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs every year as per the Companies Act 2013. If the directors fail to submit these details for three consecutive years, then the Ministry could go on to remove the company from RoC and deactivate its directors’ DIN for five years. In the year 2018, the Central Government came up with the Condonation of Delay Scheme or CODS where directors were allowed to file the relevant document to get their DINs reactivated. Many companies at that time used this scheme for revival and removal of directors’ disqualification. This is how this scheme worked:

  • The disqualified directors were needed to submit all the statutory documents with the RoC to get their DIN activated temporarily.

  • The documents are submitted with the statutory fee prescribed in Section 403 of the Companies Act. 

  • The small fee needed was only 30000 Rs. With an e-CODS form and so saved companies form hefty penalties. 

Options for Directors after CODS

The directors’ who failed to use this scheme for the removal of disqualification were left in the lurch. The other option for them was to apply in the National Companies Law Tribunal and hope to get company revival orders. Once the company was revised, they could apply for the removal of their disqualification and reactivation of DIN. In this case, when the NCLT passed the order of company revival, then RoC used to verify this order and relevant documents of the directors. But this procedure could only be followed if the companies wanted revival, the directors who just wanted to activate their DIN without applying for the revival of their company were only one option. This option was to apply for removal of disqualification in the respective High Court through a Writ Petition. The option of writing a Writ Petition to the High court is available due to constitutional rights conferred by Article 226 of the constitution to seek relief. 

A Case study of Gujarat High Court

Let’s understand how filing a Writ Petition can help in the removal of directors’ disqualification through a case presented in the Gujarat High Court.

In the year 2018, the Gujarat High Court had quashed a list generated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) that included the names of disqualified directors due to the application of the Companies Act 2013. The bench comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi held that the Companies Act 2013 can only be applied for defaulters after the release of its notification on 1st April 2014. Any retrospective application of Section 164(2) of the act will not be accepted. 

The Court Said, “The defaults contemplated under Section 164(2)(a) concerning non-filing of financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years would be the defaults to be counted from the financial year 2014-15 only and not 2013-14”.

The bench also observed, “The respondents could not have treated the Directors as disqualified/ineligible for five years from 1.11.2016 to 1.11.2021 while publishing the impugned list under Section 248 of the Act of 2013. Even if the Registrar removes the name of a company from the register of companies, and even if such company would stand dissolved under Section 248, the statutory liabilities/obligations of such struck of company and its Directors would remain to be discharged, in view of Section 250 of the said Act of 2013”, the bench also said.

This case paved the way for other directors to file for relief in the High Court if they want to remove disqualification without the revival of their company. This was also a piece of welcome news for directors who are facing disqualification due to the retrospective application of the Companies Act. This is why even after the CODS was over, filing of the Writ petition to remove directors’ disqualification is still the proven way to end the exile for directors. In the upcoming section, we will understand how to file a writ petition for the removal of director disqualification in the High Court. 

How Writ Petition is Filed?

If you want to file a writ petition for the removal of directors’ disqualification, then you just follow the following steps. 

1. The disqualified director has to undertake to use his constitutional right to file the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the respective High Court. The High Court should be chosen according to the area of jurisdiction of the company. In the application, the petitioner should include the following information,
  • List of dates and events of disqualification.

  • Affix an urgent application with a Notice of Motion. 

  • Should give reasonable justification to the court for not filing the statutory documents that led to the disqualification of the company and removal of its name from RoC. 

  • Inform the Court about the current status of the company and its directors seeking relief. 

  • List out the companies in which the petitioner is serving as a director. 

  • File a copy of the impugned Press Release or Notice issued by the RoC that lists out the names of the disqualified directors. 

  • Personal information such as name address and designation of each Memo of parties should be mentioned in the petition. 

  • A prayer cause should be attached to dismiss the publication issued by the RoC under the Companies Act’s Section 164 (2).

2. After this, the High Court issues orders after hearing the option for reactivation of the DIN of directors. The directors need to file a copy of the order and all other statutory documents to the RoC to continue with the process of registration. 

3. Once the defaulter petitioner fulfills all the required documents and completes payment of all the penalties, the RoC will start the process of reactivation. 

Opting for Legal Help

Taking help of a professional in the filing of a Writ Petition in the Court can prove to be immensely helpful considering the technicalities involved in the same. There are a lot of minute details that need to be considered for drafting a concise and lucid petition that only an experienced professional can handle. Also, if you are opting to take help from a professional legal firm, it will not only help you in the filing of the petition but also help during the representation in the Court. An advocate from a reputed firm will attend all the hearing of the Court and put arguments effectively to ask for relief from disqualification.  Once the Court grants a favourable order, you can take the help of the advocate to follow the respective compliance norms like filing the order to RoC, submitting all the necessary documents in the RoC, and submission of penalties for non-compliance. After all of this is completed, the RoC will activate your DIN to complete the process of disqualification removal. 

Chances of Favourable Outcome

If you are worried whether the outcome of filing a Writ petition in high Court will fetch positive results, then this will serve as good news to you. There have been many instances across High Courts all over the country where the director’s disqualification has been removed after hearing on the Writ Petition filed by them. The judiciary has granted interim relief to many directors and also, quashed orders of RoC in some cases. 

The Court is in general agreement with the aggrieved petitioners on the following points:

  • Ruling orders of RoC are Against Natural Justice: In most cases of directors’ disqualification, the aggrieved petitioners have mentioned that they never got any notice regarding their removal from RoC before the orders. Therefore, they never had a chance to clarify to RoC why they were not able to meet all the compliance standards of RoC. This obviously is against the constitutional right of any individual as it doesn’t allow one person to show the cause of their actions and passes the order unilaterally. 

  • Retrospective Implementation of the Prospective Act: In some cases, the Court also found the act being applied retrospectively for the disqualification of directors. The Courts deemed this kind of application of act as unjustified. 

  • Contradictory Provisions in Acts of 1956 and 2013: The High Court finds it objectionable that the provisions of the Companies Act of 1956 did not have these regulations for the private companies and their directors, and so the new Act should not impose it on them in 2017.

Based on these points most of the directors end up getting remedies on their pleas. Now the only problem remaining is to keep a positive outlook on the case and fined a good legal firm to help in disqualification removal. You can pick a reliable and trustworthy firm for yourself as there are many legal firms offering services related to disqualification removal. 

Click here to read the disclaimer


Write a Comment