Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18684 (KAR)

MS. SHEILA CHITTIAPPA v. UNION OF INDIA

WP/21693/2019 · 2025-02-20

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7614 WP No. 21693 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 21693 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MS. SHEILA CHITTIAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF RAJA PARAMESHWARAN NAYAR, SKANDA, 64, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, A WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES-KARNATAKA, "E" WING, 2ND FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADANA, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE., CGSC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7614 WP No. 21693 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Smt.Anupama Hegde., CGSC for the respondents has appeared through video conferencing. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order and quash the disqualification of the petitioner under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, notified by the respondents by way of publication of Disqualified list on the official website of respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C. (b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order and quash the disqualification of the petitioner under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, notified by the respondents by way of endorsement on the petitioners' DIN status, as reflected vide Annexure-A. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7614 WP No. 21693 of 2019 (c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the DIN 01821801. 3. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that the disqualification was for a period five i.e., from 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2021. Now we are in the month of February 2025. It has spent by itself as of today. Hence, nothing survives for consideration in the Writ Petition. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17