- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10059 WP No. 354 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 354 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI R. VASANTH KUMAR S/O SRI. J. RAGHUPATHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 45/A, ATT COLONY, COIMBATORE-641 018, TAMILNADU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUJTABA H.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110 107, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, KENDRIYA SADAN, 6TH FLOOR, C AND F WING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10059 WP No. 354 of 2021 OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN TRADE, KENDRIYA SADAN, 6TH FLOOR, C AND F WING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. 4. THE ASSISTANT DGFT/FTDO OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN TRADE, KENDRIYA SADAN, 6TH FLOOR, C AND F WING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA SINGH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-2 IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE FOREIGN TRADE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT 1992 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10059 WP No. 354 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2020 as per Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2 upon the appeal filed by him under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1992'), which in turn was necessitated in view of the order dated 30.04.2019 as per Annexure-B, passed by respondent No.3 under Section 13 of the Act, 1992. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was nominated as Additional Director of a company known as M/s. Ariatex Garments Pvt. Ltd., for a brief period between 24.01.2008 and 15.10.2008, on which date he resigned from his post of Additional Director of the said company. The said company was incorporated in terms of provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, wholly managed and controlled by only two directors namely Sri. Ranjith S. Pillai and Sri. Nishit Harwalkar, who are the directors in charge and responsible for the affairs of the said company. That the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10059 WP No. 354 of 2021 petitioner merely had been co-opted as a non-whole time Additional Director without having to do anything with the administration or affairs of the company. He was not assigned with any specific duties or responsibilities either. Subsequent to tendering of his resignation on 15.10.2008, a communication was sent to the Registrar of companies in Form No.DIR-11 as per Annexure-E, which was duly reflected in the Master Data of the Company maintained by the Registrar of companies. Annexure-F is the Master Data, which reflect the tenure of the petitioner as the Additional Director from 24.01.2008 till 15.10.2008. Thus the petitioner had nothing to do with the said company on and after 15.10.2008. Things stood thus, after 11 years of petitioner tendering his resignation he received a show cause notice dated 02.03.2019 from the Officer of the respondent No.4, alleging non-compliance with the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 and was asked to appear for the personal hearing on 03.04.2019 to which he had - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10059 WP No. 354 of 2021 submitted his reply along with the documents in the nature of copy of Form No.DIR-11 as per Annexure-E, bringing to their notice, he having ceased to be the Additional Director after his brief tenure between 24.01.2008 and 15.10.2008. Without even considering said reply, respondent No.2 passed the order, noting that since his name continued in the Registrar of Directors, he would be responsible and would be to prosecuted under provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992. 3. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.30503/2019, which was disposed of in the light of petitioner having preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 under Section 15 of the Act, 1992. 4. The respondent No.2 without considering the case of petitioner and condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal, as respondent No.2 did not have power to condone - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10059 WP No. 354 of 2021 the delay in filing the appeal beyond seventy five days. Being aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was in the light of petitioner pursuing the writ petition in W.P.No.30503/2019. Alternatively, he submits that in any event, the petitioner not being the Director of the Company on and after 15.10.2008, he cannot be held responsible for any act or omission that has transpired on and after the said period. He submits that the allegations of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, 1992 made against the Company and its Director was for the period after 2011. Therefore, petitioner who had resigned from the post cannot be held responsible for any action that had been done subsequent to his exiting from the company. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Authorities on the other hand referring to paragraph Nos.6 and 10 of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10059 WP No. 354 of 2021 statement of objection submits that though the petitioner had purportedly intimated his resignation to the Registrar of companies in Form No.DIR-11 as per Annexure-E, having exited from the company on and after 15.10.2008, the same has not been intimated to the respondents. 7. On a specific query by this Court as to the provisions which specifically warrants the petitioner to intimate and make available such information, nothing brought to the notice of this Court. The only presumption therefore can be drawn is there is no such statutory requirement warranting petitioner to intimate about his resignation or exit, as the case may be, from the company to which he was Additional Director. Petitioner has admittedly complied with the requirement of provisions of Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 16 of Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rule, 2014 by submitting the Form No.DIR-11 as found at Annexure-E and his name having been removed in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10059 WP No. 354 of 2021 Master Data pertaining to the company to which he was appointed as the Additional Director. 8. In the light of the compliance of the requirement of Section 168 of the Companies Act, 2013 as noted above and as seen at Annexures-E and F, and in the absence of any specific provision being brought to the notice of this Court with regard to the petitioner requiring to intimate to respondents, this Court do not see any reason not to agree with and accept the submissions being made on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is quashed. *(iii) Impugned order dated 30.04.2019 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure - B is quashed. It is made clear, this Order is only with respect to the petitioner. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 * Inserted vide court order dated 09.03.2026