Registrar is not in a position to take a decision When removal of Director is pending consideration before NCLT: Calcutta HC [Read Order]
The provision of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2014 requires the Registrar to verify the documents and find out as to whether the Company has violated any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules which relates to vacation or removal of Directors before approving or invalidating Form No. DIR-12
![Registrar is not in a position to take a decision When removal of Director is pending consideration before NCLT: Calcutta HC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/08/01/2072101-registrar-is-not-in-a-position-to-take-a-decision-position-to-take-a-decision-taqxscan.webp "Registrar is not in a position to take a decision When removal of Director is pending consideration before NCLT: Calcutta HC [Read Order]")
The Calcutta High Court has held that the registrar is not in a position to take a decision When removal of Director is pending consideration before the National company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ). The provision of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2014 requires the Registrar to verify the documents and find out as to whether the Company has violated any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules...
The Calcutta High Court has held that the registrar is not in a position to take a decision When removal of Director is pending consideration before the National company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ). The provision of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2014 requires the Registrar to verify the documents and find out as to whether the Company has violated any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules which relates to vacation or removal of Directors before approving or invalidating Form No. DIR-12.
Brijsons Hotel Private Limited & Ors, the petitioner no.1 is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of the petitioner no.1.The petitioners allege that the Registrar of Companies is not taking steps to remove the name of the earlier Director who has since been removed by the shareholders of the Company.
The Registrar of Companies has intimated the Company that as the issue is subjudice, accordingly, steps cannot be taken. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same. Counsel for the petitioners refers to Rule 11 of the Companies (The Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014 which relates to vacation or removal of directors. Rule 11(2) has been stressed upon.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
It has been submitted that it is the duty of the Registrar to verify the documents and if it is found that the Company has violated any of the provisions of the Act or the rules, he ought to refer the matter to the Regional Director concerned, who is to enquire the same by giving opportunity to the person who has been removed or vacated as Director and convey the decision of the matter to the Registrar within ninety days from the date of reference to him by the Registrar.
It has been submitted that the removal of the private respondent has not been stayed by any competent forum and the Registrar ought to act in accordance with the above Rule. Counsel representing the private respondent who is one of the Directors of the Company since removed, alleges that the removal is absolutely bad and the same is under challenge before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The petitioners have been injuncted from dispossessing any of the assets of the Company.
Counsel representing the Registrar of Companies submits, upon instruction that, as the issue of removal of the private respondent is pending consideration before NCLT, accordingly, the Registrar is not in a position to take a decision in the matter. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before the Court, it appears that the removal of the private respondent is, admittedly, pending consideration before NCLT. The said forum will certainly deal with the matter in accordance with law.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
The provision of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2014 requires the Registrar to verify the documents and find out as to whether the Company has violated any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules which relates to vacation or removal of Directors before approving or invalidating Form No. DIR-12. If the Registrar finds that the Company has violated any of the provisions of the Act, he is required to refer the matter to the Regional Director concerned, who in turn is required to conduct enquiry into the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the person who has been removed as Director and thereafter convey the decision of the matter to the Registrar.
The application of the petitioners for uploading the proper details of the Directors of the Company in the official portal is pending consideration. The Registrar ought to take a decision on the same relying on the aforesaid Rules.
A single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar of Companies to take a decision in respect of the application made by the petitioners in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2014 at the earliest, but positively within a period of four weeks.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
