2 months ago
1
General caput of the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam Vellappally Natesan and its vice-president Tushar Vellappally person approached the Kerala High Court challenging its March 12 bid disqualifying them from holding their posts successful the organisation.
The High Court disqualified them from their posts pursuing a uncovering that they acted successful usurpation of the Companies Act, 2013, by failing to record audited accounts of the Yogam for 3 consecutive years. The tribunal past went connected to nonstop the assignment of a caller committee of directors successful the Yogam.
The tribunal passed the bid connected petitions filed by precocious literate professional M.K. Sanoo and others, each members of the Yogam, alleging non-submission of fiscal statements of the Yogam for 3 consecutive years. They had besides challenged an bid of the IG (Registration) which allowed the 2 office-bearers and M.N. Soman, president of the Yogam, to proceed successful their posts, contempt the alleged non-submission of the statements.
In their appeal, Mr. Natesan and his lad Tushar contended that by issuing an bid disqualifying them, the tribunal committed a cardinal jurisdictional mistake by issuing directions that affected the creation of the Board of Directors. The writ petitions were not maintainable since the quality relates to alleged disqualification of directors and interior absorption of a institution governed by the Companies Act, 2013. Such issues autumn wrong the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal, and Section 430 of the Act expressly barred the jurisdiction of civilian courts and different forums successful matters which the Tribunal is empowered to determine.
They further referred to a ‘binding judgment’ of a Division Bench of the High Court successful 2024 wherein it was held that the Yogam, being a backstage company, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and that disputes relating to its interior affairs indispensable beryllium resolved done statutory remedies nether the institution law. A Single Judge could frankincense not disregard a ‘binding’ Division Bench judgment, connected the ground of a determination which itself stands stayed. The impugned judgement truthful violates settled principles of judicial subject and precedent.
The impugned judgement is further vitiated by ‘serious factual errors’, the appellants said and contended that the Single Judge issued the bid connected the premise that the Yogam had failed to record yearly returns and truthful incurred disqualification nether the Companies Act. The materials connected grounds intelligibly found that the yearly returns were filed wrong the extended clip permitted by the authorities. Section 164(2) of the Act applies lone successful cases of non-filing of returns for 3 consecutive fiscal years and truthful the uncovering of disqualification is unsustainable, the appellants contended.
They further contested the Single Judge disqualifying them for among others, not possessing a Director Identification Number issued by the State government. The impugned judgement truthful suffers from superior jurisdictional error, nonaccomplishment to travel binding precedent, incorrect appreciation of facts relating to filing of returns and erroneous mentation of the statutory provisions relating to DIN and the disqualification of directors of the Yogam, they submitted and sought that the March 12 bid of the High Court beryllium acceptable aside.
