Kerala High Court
Dr. K.Reghu Anchayil vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2026
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8095 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 [PROF.M.K.SANOO *[Expired]
AGED 94 YEARS
S/O.MANGALATH M.C.KESAVAN,
'SANDHYA', KARIKKAMURI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011]
*[P1 expired is recorded vide
order dated 12.03.2026 as per
the memo dated 08.08.2025.]
2 ADV.M.K.SASEENDRAN
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O LATE M.I.KRISHNAN,
MYLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CONVENT ROAD,
PONNURUNNI, VYTILA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682019
BY ADVS.
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.K.P.PRASANTH
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-2-
TAXES (J) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
EX-MAYOR R BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD,
NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 ARUVIPURAM SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
V.K.NATESAN, S/O KESAVAN,
SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
4 V.K.NATESAN
S/O KESAVAN, GENERAL SECRETARY,
SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.512,
JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE, KANCHUKULANGARA P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688582
5 DR.M.N.SOMAN
PRESIDENT, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
6 THUSHAR
S/O V.K.NATESAN,
VICE PRESIDENT, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-3-
KARBALA, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001
VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE, KANCHUKULANGARA P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688582
7 SANTHOSH @ ARAYAKKANDIL SANTHOSH
DEVASWOM SECRETARY,
SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.512,
JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
BY ADVS.
SRI UDAYA HOLLA (SR.ADV.)
MEGHANA BALLAL
SHRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
SHRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN SPL.G.P TO A.G
SRI.V.P.BRIJESH
SMT.ASWATHY AMBY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.1.2026 ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.8198/2024 & 10526/2024, THE
COURT ON 12.03.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-4-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8198 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
S. CHANDRASENAN
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O SIVADASAN, RAGASUDHA, TNRAL 13, THEVALLY P.O.,
KOLLAM,, PIN - 691009
BY ADV SHRI.D.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
EX. MAYOR R. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT
COURT, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN -
695001
3 ARUVIPURAM SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, V.K.
NATESAN, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, PB NO.512,
JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOLLAM,, PIN - 691001
4 V.K. NATESAN
S/O KESAVAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, SNDP YOGAM HEAD
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-5-
OFFICE, PB NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOLLAM,, PIN -
691001
5 DR. M.N. SOMAN
PRESIDENT, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, PB NO.512,
JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
6 TUSHAR
S/O V.K. NATESAN, VICE PRESIDENT, SNDP YOGAM HEAD
OFFICE, PB NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOLLAM,, PIN -
691001
7 SANTHOSH @ ARAYAKKANDIL SANTHOSH
DEVASWOM SECRETARY, SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, PB
NO.512, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOLLAM,, PIN - 691001
BY ADVS.
SRI UDAYA HOLLA (SR.ADV.)
MEGHANA BALLAL
SHRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
SHRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN SPL. G.P TO A.G
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.01.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.8095/2024 AND 10526/2024,
THE COURT ON 12.03.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-6-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10526 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DR. K.REGHU ANCHAYIL
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O V.KUMARAN
RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL HOUSE
BHARANIKAVU P.O., PALLIKAL,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690541
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
SHRI.HARISH R. MENON
SMT.K.N.ABHA
SHRI.R.REVIKUMAR
SRI.A.G.PRASANTH
SMT.ALEENA SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TAXES (J) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-7-
2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
EX-MAYOR R. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD
NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695035
3 THE JOINT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
EX-MAYOR R. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD
NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695035
4 ARUVIPURAM SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
V.K.NATESAN, S/O KESAVAN
SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.512 JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
5 V.K.NATESAN
S/O KESAVAN
GENERAL SECRETARY, SNDP YOGAM
HEAD OFFICE P.B.NO.512,
JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001
RESIDING AT VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE,
KANICHIKULANGARA P.O. CHERTHALAI,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688582
6 DR. M.N. SOMAN
PRESIDENT, SNDP YOGAM
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-8-
SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.512 JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
7 THUSHAR
S/O V.K.NATESAN,
VICE-PRESIDENT, SNDP YOGAM
SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.512 JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KARBALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001
RESIDING AT VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE,
KANICHIKULANGARA P.O. CHERTHALAI,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688582
8 SANTHOSH @ ARAYAKKANDIL SANTHOSH
DEVASWOM SECRETARY SNDP YOGAM,
SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE P.B.NO.512,
JAWAHAR NAGAR, KARBALA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN SPL. G.P TO A.G FOR R1 TO R3
SHRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU FOR R4 TO R8
SRI UDAYA HOLLA (SR.ADV.)
MEGHANA BALLAL
SHRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.01.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.8095/2024 AND 8198/2024,
THE COURT ON 12.03.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-9-
"CR"
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095 of 2024, 8198 of 2024
&
10526 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2026
JUDGMENT
The prayers in the above three writ petitions are similar. The
writ petitions are hence heard and disposed of together.
2. The petitioners in all these cases are members of the
Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP
Yogam). The writ petitions are filed, mainly aggrieved by the
Order No. IGR/4487/2020/L3 dated 17.02.2024 issued by the
Inspector General of Registration, holding that the Directors were
not disqualified for the financial years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.
3. W.P.(C)No.8198 OF 2024 has been filed praying to
quash Order No. IGR/4487/2020/L3 dated 17.02.2024 of IG of
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-10-
Registration; to declare that respondents 4 to 7 are disqualified
under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’
for short) and ineligible to continue as Directors of SNDP Yogam;
to declare that all the Directors of SNDP Yogam are disqualified
under Section 164 of the Companies Act; to appoint an
Administrator to run the affairs of the SNDP Yogam including
preparation and publication of voters list in the SNDP Yogam,
issuance of Identity cards to such voters, conduct a free and fair
election and handover the administration to such elected body;
and to declare that the SNDP Yogam has no control over the
Unions and Sakhas.
4. W.P.(C)No.8095 OF 2024 has been filed with similar
prayers and with additional prayers for a declaration that the
respondents 4 to 7 are disqualified under the provisions of Section
167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013; to restrain respondents 4
to 7 from functioning as the Directors of the Respondent No.3
Yogam; and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to convene AGM of the
3rd respondent Yogam and conduct election within a time frame to
be fixed by this Court.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-11-
5. W.P.(C)No.10526 OF 2024 has been filed with
similar prayers and with additional prayers to direct the 2nd
respondent to identify those Directors of the Yogam who do not
have a valid Director Identification Number (DIN) and remove
them as Directors of the Yogam and if the 2 nd respondent finds
that the all the Directors of the Yogam are disqualified under
Section 167(1)(a) of the 2013 Act or are found ineligible in the
absence of possession of a valid DIN, then to direct the 2 nd
respondent to appoint the required number of Directors who shall
hold office till the Directors are appointed by the Company in the
general meeting within such period.
6. The parties are referred to in this judgment as per
their status in W.P.(C)No.8198 of 2024. The case of the petitioners
is as follows:- The SNDP Yogam was initially registered on
15.05.1903 under the Travancore Regulation No.1 of 1063 and
was subsequently deemed to be registered under the Companies
Act, 1956. Though the Kerala Non-Trading Companies Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Kerala Act‘) came into force later,
the Yogam continued under the Companies Act, 1956 (the 1956
Act for short), until the Central Government issued an order on
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-12-
23.08.2005 under Section 399(4) of the 1956 Act, directing that
the Kerala Government had jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Yogam
has been governed by the Kerala Act, with the provisions of the
2013 Act applying mutatis mutandis. The Yogam is deemed to be
a Public Company under the applicable laws. As per Section
274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956, a person becomes
disqualified to be a Director of a Public Company if the Company
has not filed annual accounts and returns for any continuous
period of three financial years. The petitioners claim that the
Yogam failed to file such returns from 2006-07 to 2016-17 until
24.09.2020 and that the Directors have thus incurred
disqualification from 2009 onwards.
7. Though the Yogam later filed the pending returns
under the Companies Fresh Start Scheme (CFSS), 2020, and was
granted immunity from penalties or prosecution, the petitioners
argue that this does not remove the incurred disqualifications.
Earlier, when the matter was raised before the Inspector General
of Registration, it was dismissed on the ground that the parties
should seek remedies before a civil court. The above order was
set aside by this Court by its judgment dated 30.11.2023, holding
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-13-
that the Inspector General of Registration had failed to exercise
jurisdiction.
8. Subsequently, W.P.(C) No.22201 of 2022 was filed
before this Court seeking the appointment of an Administrator for
the Yogam and the conduct of free and fair elections. The Court,
by its judgment dated 15.01.2024, directed that if the petitioners
could establish locus standi, the Inspector General of Registration
must hear them. Acknowledging the petitioners’ locus standi, the
Inspector General of Registration heard them. The petitioners
contend that, without adequately addressing the core issues
raised and contrary to the directions of this Court, the Inspector
General of Registration passed a fresh order dated 17.02.2024,
stating that the Directors were not disqualified for 2014-2015 and
2015-2016, citing the immunity granted under the CFSS, 2020,
and the requirements under the Companies (Appointment and
Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.
9. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondents 3 to 7. The contentions in the counter affidavit are;
(i) Writ petitions are not maintainable, since on the
same set of facts, CP No. 42/KoB/2020 and CP
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-14-
No. 50/KoB/2020 have been preferred before the
Company Law Tribunal, and OS No.328 of 2022 is
pending before the Munsiff Court,
Karunagappally.
(ii) The Yogam has 240 Sakhas and 7 Unions outside
Kerala at present, and hence it is no longer
governed by the Kerala Act, but is governed by
the 2013 Act.
(iii) Since it is observed in Ext.P1 judgment
(produced in W.P.(C)No.8198 of 2024) that the
Yogam can obtain exemption from the
appropriate authority/Government restricting the
voting rights of members of the Yogam, no
appeal was filed against Ext.P1 judgment (after
the filing of the counter-affidavit, Ext.P1
judgment was challenged before a Division
Bench, and the Division Bench has already set
aside Ext.P1 judgment).
(iv) DIN had been allotted to respondents 4 to 7 even
before the commencement of the Act. They are
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-15-
not disqualified for non-compliance with Section
152(3) of the Act. The Munsiff Court, Kollam, has
already held that respondents 4 to 7 are not
disqualified for lack of DIN.
(v) The order dated 23.8.2005 issued by the Central
Government, finding that the Kerala Act applies
to the Yogam, has been set aside by the High
Court of New Delhi by judgment dated
09.02.2009 in W.P.(C)Nos.22699, 22700 and
22701 of 2005, and the Central Government was
directed to decide the issue afresh.
(vi) Since there are no Rules framed by the Kerala
Government for the issuance of DIN, there
cannot be a disqualification.
(vii) After the order dated 23.08.2005, returns were
submitted to the IG of Registration, Kerala, but
they were returned, as the original registers and
records were not received, from the office of the
Registrar of Companies, Kerala.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-16-
(viii) This Court, on 26.02.2009, issued orders in CP
No.40 of 2008 directing the original registers and
records of the Yogam to be kept in a sealed cover
under the custody of the Registrar (Judicial) of
this Court. In September 2019 the records of the
Yogam were received back at the office of the IG
of Registration, and thereafter representations
were filed for acceptance of the annual returns.
(ix) On 30.12.2019, the Government of Kerala
appointed the Deputy Inspector General
(Licensing) as the adjudicating officer regarding
the fee to be paid for filing the returns. In
exercise of powers under Section 460 of the 2013
Act, read with Section 3 of the Kerala Act, the
Government of Kerala has condoned the delay in
filing the annual reports by its order dated
24.09.2020, a copy of which has been produced
as Ext.R4(j) in W.P.(C)No.8095 of 2024.
Thereafter, the returns were accepted by the IG
of Registration.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-17-
(x) A fine of ₹1,00,000/- imposed for accepting the
returns after 2016-2017 was cancelled under the
CFSS 2020 scheme, introduced by the
Government thereafter. The contention is that all
the requirements have been complied with, and
returns have also been filed, and hence, there is
no disqualification.
(xi) The respondents 4 to 7 were elected on
09.08.2015, and as per Article 18 of the Articles
of Association, they are entitled to continue till
new office bearers are elected.
(xii) The disqualification under Section 164 (2) is not
automatic, and a prior enquiry is required before
disqualifying the Directors. The direction of this
Court in Ext.P7 judgment (produced in W.P.
(C)No.8198 of 2024) was only to consider the
disqualifications, if any, due to non-filing of DIN
or non-intimation of DIN.
(xiii) There is no illegality in condoning the delay in
filing the returns, since under Section 458 of the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-18-
2013 Act, the power of the Government can be
delegated to a subordinate authority.
10. Heard Sri P.B.Krishnan, Senior Advocate, instructed
by Sri Sabu George, for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.8095 of
2024, Sri D.Anil Kumar for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8198 of
2024, Sri K.T. Shyamkumar for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.10526
of 20224, Sri Uday Holla, Senior Advocate, instructed by
Sri A.N.Rajan Babu for respondents 3 to 7 in W.P.(C)Nos.8095 of
2024 & 8198 of 2024 respectively and for respondents 4 to 8 in
W.P.(C)No.10526 of 2024, Sri C.E.Unnikrishnan, Special
Government Pleader to AG for the official respondents/State.
RELEVANT FACTS :-
11. The Yogam was originally incorporated as a Company
under Regulation 1 of 1063 of Travancore Regulations, which was
the equivalent of the Indian Companies Act, 1882, with effect
from 15.05.1903. As per the Byelaw, the Yogam was formed to
promote and encourage religious and secular education and
industrious habits among the ‘Ezhava’ community and to do all
such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment
of the said objects. After the 1956 Act came into force, the Yogam
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-19-
was governed by the provisions of the said Act. The Kerala Act
came into force with effect from 01.03.1962. As per the
preamble of the Kerala Act, its purpose is to provide for the
incorporation, regulation and winding up of Companies, other
than trading corporations (including banking, insurance and
financial corporations), with objects confined to the State of
Kerala.
12. The Articles of Association of the Yogam were amended
in 1966, and Clause 47, which was introduced, provided that in
the general meeting of the Yogam, the members of the Director
Board, Union Presidents, Union Secretaries and 1% of the
permanent members of the Unions who are selected in the
manner prescribed, will be entitled to participate. That is, if there
are 100 permanent members in a Union, one person will be
entitled to represent the Union at the general meeting. Clause 47
was challenged before this Court and a Division Bench of this
Court in the decision dated 28.11.1972 in P.C.Aravindhan v.
M.A.Kesavan & Ors. reported in [1973 KLT 70] declared that
Clause 47 of the Articles of Association of the Yogam is violative of
the provisions of Table C of Schedule 1 of the 1956 Act, and hence
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-20-
void. The Division Bench proceeded on the basis that the 1956
Act governs the Yogam, and the effect of the Kerala Act was not
considered. In paragraph 21 of the judgment, the Division Bench
observed that it is open to the Yogam to take advantage of
Section 25(6) of the 1956 Act.
13. Based on the observation in the judgment, the Yogam
approached the Central Government under Section 25(6) of the
1956 Act, requesting to exempt the Yogam from the provisions of
Section 172(2), 219 and Article 14 of Table C of the Act.
14. Though exemption was obtained under the 1956 Act,
the Yogam held out that it was governed by the Kerala Act. On
02.10.2005, the Yogam filed an application before the Registrar of
Companies, Ernakulam, requesting that all records relating to the
Yogam be transferred to the Office of the IG of Registration, State
of Kerala. The reason stated in the application is that the Kerala
Act governs the Yogam. An application filed before the Company
Law Board, Chennai, complaining of mismanagement was rejected
on 21.04.2015, on a finding that the Yogam was governed by the
Kerala Act and the Company Law Board lacks jurisdiction. In
C.P.No.18 of 2008 and F.A.O.No.18 of 2020 before this Court, the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-21-
Yogam took the stand that the Kerala Act applies to the Yogam.
On 26.12.2019, the Kerala Government issued orders authorising
the Registration Deputy Inspector General (Licensing) to serve as
the Adjudicating Authority for the filing of the Yogam’s annual
returns. The order would show that the Yogam and the
Government were of the view that the Kerala Act applies to the
Yogam. It was in the above background that the writ petition,
which led to Ext.P1 judgment, was filed before this Court.
15. In Ext.P1 judgment, this Court, after considering the
admitted facts, held that the Kerala Act governs the Yogam, and
that the exemption granted by the Central Government under the
1956 Act, was without jurisdiction. This Court followed the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in P.C. Aravindhan
(supra) and held that all members are entitled to vote.
16. The hearing of these writ petitions proceeded based on
the above facts and the specific contention in the counter affidavit
of the respondents 4 to 7 was that Ext.P1 judgment was not
challenged in view of the observation that the Yogam can
approach the appropriate authority for restriction of voting rights.
Since one of the prayers in the writ petitions was for the conduct
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-22-
of the election to the SNDP Yogam, as agreed to by the Counsel
for the petitioners and respondents, this Court issued certain
directions, as preparatory to the conduct of elections to the SNDP
Yogam. The 3rd respondent was directed to collect the members’
list with details like address, identification documents, etc. from
all its Sakhas and consolidate the same as a single list. Based on
lists of persons who can be appointed to assist the Observer and
Returning Officer, to be appointed to conduct the election, this
Court ordered that Sri Sinil Mundappalli, Advocate,
Sri A.Somarajan, Sri N.D.Premachandran, Advocate and
Sri P.P.Madhusoodanan, can be included in the committee to be
formed for assisting the election to the SNDP Yogam. The time
granted to the Yogam to prepare the list was being extended from
time to time. Finally, this Court appointed Mr.Justice
K.Ramakrishnan, Former Judge of this Court, as Chairperson of
the Committee to oversee the election, to function with the help
of the persons mentioned above and directed the Yogam to place
the lists prepared till then before the Committee. The Yogam was
thereafter directed to provide sufficient office space for the
functioning of the Committee. After several postings and orders,
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-23-
on 28.11.2024, the Chairman of the Committee reported that the
preparation of the list of members is going at a snail’s pace, and
this Court issued specific directions to the Yogam to speed up the
process. When the process initiated by this Court did not draw the
desired results, it was finally decided to hear and dispose of the
writ petitions on merits, instead of venturing to conduct the
election.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
17. Sri P.B.Krishnan, Senior Counsel, and Sri D.Anil
Kumar, appearing for the petitioners, contended as follows:
(a) The respondents 4 to 7 who were Directors of the
Yogam for several terms, were last re-elected for
a 5-year term on 09.08.2015, and even after
their 5-year term expired, they are continuing in
office without conducting an Annual General
Meeting.
(b) Section 92 of the Companies Act mandates the
filing of returns. As per Section 96 of the
Companies Act, an AGM should be conducted
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-24-
every year, and the period between two AGMs
should not exceed 15 months.
(c) Section 164 of the Companies Act says that the
Directors of the Company who do not file annual
returns and financial statements for 3 financial
years are disqualified for 5 years. Section 167(1)
(a) of the Act also contemplates disqualification.
The relevant years for judging the applicability of
Section 164(2) are 2014-15 to 2022-23.
(d) The Central Government had notified the CFSS
2020 scheme in exercise of power under Section
460 read with Section 403 of the Companies Act
with effect from 1.4.2020. The scheme enabled
the defaulting companies to file their
returns/belated documents and secure immunity
from prosecution and penalty.
(e) While W.P.(C) No.19266 of 2020 was pending,
the 2nd respondent issued an adjudication order
on 24.09.2020, exercising power under Section
460 read with Section 92(5) of the Act,
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-25-
condoning the delay in filing for the period from
2006-2007 to 2016-2017 on payment of ₹1 lakh
and specifying the regular filing fee as ₹ 6,600/-.
(f) The direction to pay Rs.1 lakh was waived by the
IG of Registration, by order dated 05.11.2020,
passed on an application dated 21.10.2020, filed
by the Yogam under the CFSS 2020. On that day,
after paying the filing fee of ₹ 6,600/-, the
returns for the period from 2006-2007 to 2016-
17 were filed. The immunity certificate issued on
05.11.2020 has been produced as Ext.P2 in W.P.
(C)No.8095 of 2024.
(g) On 24.01.2022, this Court rendered Ext.P1
judgment. On 8.2.2022, by Ext.P8 (produced in
W.P.(C)No.8095 of 2024), the Government
condoned the delay in filing returns for 2017-
2018 to 2019-2020. This was in exercise of
power under Section 460 of the 2013 Act, and
not under the CFSS 2020. On 27.05.2022, by the
judgment in Ext.P2, the Division Bench upheld
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-26-
the finding of the trial court that a scheme for
the administration of the Yogam in accordance
with the requirements of the relevant statute
governing Companies is to be framed.
(h) The counsel submitted that the condonation of
delay and CFSS 2020 only averts penalty and
prosecution and does not remove any
disqualification of the Directors. It is pointed out
that the disqualified Directors of the Company
were not applicants under the CFSS 2020. The
CFSS 2020 was framed by the Government,
under Section 460 of the 2013 Act, and it cannot
override the statutory consequences flowing from
Section 164(2) of the 2013 Act. It is hence
submitted that once a disqualification is incurred,
there is no provision to reverse it.
(i) It is submitted that the last election of Directors
was at the 110th AGM held on 09.08.2015. The
113th AGM was held on 07.02.2019, and the
election of Directors was not conducted. Even
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-27-
after the 113th AGM, more than 6 years have
elapsed. It is pointed out that as far as the
returns for the period 2017-2018 to 2019-2020
are concerned, condonation of delay was not
under the CFSS 2020, and the so-called benefits
claimed under the scheme will not be available
merely because the delay was condoned in
exercise of the power under Section 460 of the
2013 Act.
(j) It is submitted that the stand of persons who
were not properly elected in the first place,
whose term has also expired in 2020, and who
are disqualified under Section 164(2) and 167(1)
(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, cannot be
treated as the stand of the Yogam or its
members. It is submitted that the Yogam is a
public trust, and this Court should exercise its
parens patriae jurisdiction.
(k) The Yogam has more than 32 lakhs members,
and it administers multiple educational and other
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-28-
institutions, and micro finance credit and finance
distribution of around ₹ 4,500/- Crores, and the
public interest lies in ensuring that the Yogam is
governed legally and properly, and not for
satisfying private interests of the office bearers.
18. Regarding the order Ext.P15 (produced in in W.P.
(C)No.8095 of 2024), it is submitted that the finding that the
Directors are not disqualified for the period 2014-2015 to 2015-
2016 was not proper, particularly since this Court had directed
consideration of disqualification for the period 2016-2017 to
2022-2023 also. It is submitted that the above aspect has not
been considered in Ext.P15.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 4 to 7:
19. Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Counsel and Sri Rajan Babu
appearing for the respondents 4 to 7, raised the following
contentions:
(a) The writ petitions are not maintainable since
there is a statutory remedy available under the
2013 Act. Two Company Petitions before the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-29-
National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench,
and OS No.328 of 2022 before the Munsiff Court,
Ernakulam, are pending, for the very same relief.
When Legislation provides a statutory remedy by
way of an application before the National
Company Law Tribunal, the writ remedy stands
ousted.
(b) The Yogam did not fail to file the annual returns
continuously for 3 years, and there was no
conscious or wilful default. Reference is made to
the documents produced along with the counter
affidavit to show the filing of the returns. The
returns were not accepted by the IG of
Registration, since the original records had not
been received from the Registrar of Companies.
The original records were in this Court’s custody
from February 2009 till September 2019. When
there is an impossibility of performance, that
would be a valid excuse for non-performance.
Reliance is placed on the legal maxims ‘lex non
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-30-
cogit ad impossibilia’ and ‘impotentia excusat
legem’.
(c) The continuation of respondents 4 to 7 as Office
Bearers is not unauthorised or illegal, since
Sections 164(2) and 167(1) of the Companies
Act permit the existing Directors to continue in
office.
(d) The continuous period of 3 years can be counted
only after Section 164(2) came into force with
effect from 01.04.2014. In Ext.P5 judgment
(produced in W.P.(C)No.8095 of 2024), the only
direction was to consider disqualification with
respect to the years 2013-14 to 2015-16, and no
other enquiry was contemplated.
(e) There is no disqualification since the delay in
filing the returns was condoned by the
Government under Section 460 of the 2013 Act.
Once the delay is condoned, the difference in
status between returns filed within time and
outside time stands obliterated.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-31-
(f) Section 167(1)(a) is clarificatory in nature and
hence retrospective, and no disqualification can
be attributed to respondents 4 to 7 under
Sections 164 (2) and 167(1)(a). Moreover, the
respondents 4 to 7 have been allotted DIN, and
hence no disqualification can be attributed for
not possessing a valid DIN.
(g) In view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court condoning the delay in all cases up to
February 2022, considering the COVID
pandemic, it cannot be said that there was any
delay in filing the returns for the period 2017-
2018 to 2019-2020. Moreover, the annual
returns for the years 2020-2021 to 2020-2023
have been filed on time.
(h) There are 170 Directors, of whom more than 60
Directors have a valid DIN and others have
applied. The quorum for a meeting is either 8
members or 25% of its total strength, whichever
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-32-
is less, and hence the Directors will not have to
vacate the office for non-possession of DIN.
(i) Since the Kerala Government has not issued any
Rules for the allotment of DIN, the question of
non-possession of DIN does not arise.
(j) The Articles of Association say that one-third of
the Directors should retire every year, and the
petitioners are bound to ascertain who the
present Directors are, and implead all of them in
the party array, failing which the writ petition
should fail for non-joinder of parties.
(k) In the alternative, even if it is assumed that
respondents 4 to 7 became disqualified in
September 2016 for failure to file annual returns
for 3 years continuously, the 5-year period of
disqualification for re-appointment is already
over by 2021 or 2022, and hence no declaration
can be granted that respondents 4 to 7 are
ineligible to seek re-election.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-33-
(l) Under Section 463 of the 2013 Act, this Court
can excuse the Directors of the Yogam, as they
have acted honestly and reasonably and have
taken all efforts to file the annual returns.
CONSIDERATION:
20. As already observed, the Yogam had initially accepted
Ext.P1 judgment. Some members of the Yogam had earlier filed
O.S.No.45 of 1999 before the District Court, Ernakulam under
Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of
certain persons from the administration of the Yogam and for
framing a scheme for its administration. The suit was decreed on
08.04.2009. An appeal, RFA No.843 of 2009, was filed before this
Court by the Yogam and the 4th respondent. The said appeal had
been pending before this Court since 2009. It was during the
pendency of O.S.No.45 of 1999 that the Ministry of Company
Affairs, Government of India, had passed the order dated
23.08.2005 stating that the Kerala Act governs the Yogam. The
Yogam thereafter started submitting the annual returns to the
Inspector General of Registration, under the Kerala Act. The order
dated 23.08.2005 was challenged in W.P.(C). No.22699 of 2005
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-34-
before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi, by
judgment dated 07.2.2009, allowed the writ petition and directed
the Central Government to reconsider whether the Kerala Act
governs the Yogam. The stand of the Yogam before the Delhi High
Court was that it is governed by the Kerala Act.
21. On 29.08.2013, the 2013 Act came into force. Section
164 of the 2013 Act, relating to disqualification of Directors, was
brought into force with effect from 01.04.2014 as per notification
dated 26.03.2014. Respondents 4 to 7 were elected as Directors
at the 110th Annual General Meeting on 09.08.2015. Despite the
judgment of the High Court of Delhi and the coming into force of
the 2013 Act, the Yogam submitted the annual returns for the
years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 before the IG of
Registration on 17.08.2015, 31.10.2016, 09.01.2018 and
16.01.2019, thus holding out that the Yogam was governed by
the Kerala Act. It is also admitted that the original documents of
the Yogam were returned to the IG of Registration (whose
authority was only under the Kerala Act) in September 2019. It is
thereafter that the writ petitions which led to Ext.P1 were filed
before this Court.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-35-
22. Meanwhile, a representation had been filed before the
IG of Registration praying to remove respondents 4 to 7 as
Directors. A copy of the representation has been produced as
Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.8095 of 2024. This was followed by W.P.(C)
No.19266 of 2020 seeking directions to the IG of Registration to
consider the representation. While so, on 24.09.2020, orders
were passed under Section 460 of the 2013 Act, condoning the
delay in filing the annual returns from 2006-07 to 2016-17 by
fixing a fine of ₹1 lakh. On 05.11.2020, the Yogam filed returns
from 2006-07 to 2016-17 under the CFSS 2020 scheme and the
IG of Registration granted immunity certificate, copy of which has
been produced as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.8095 of 2024. W.P.(C)
No.19266 of 2020 was disposed of by this Court, directing the IG
of Registration to consider the representation submitted.
Respondents 4 to 7 filed a review petition as R.P.No.113 of 2021
seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.19266 of 2020. The
Review Petition was disposed of, directing the IG of Registration to
consider the representation untrammeled by the observations
made in the judgment, and the relevant years for deciding on the
disqualification were from 2014-15 and not 2013-14.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-36-
23. The Yogam notified that the Annual General Meeting
will be held on 14.04.2021 for the election of office bearers, but
the same was stayed by this Court by order in W.P.(C)No.10796 of
2021 on 14.5.2021. The petitioners filed W.A.No.688 of 2021,
challenging the order in W.P(C)No.19266 of 2020 and Review
Petition No.113 of 2020. On 24.01.2022, this Court passed Ext.P1
judgment (produced in W.P.(C)No.8198 of 2024), holding that the
Yogam was governed by the Kerala Act. On 30.01.2022, the IG of
Registration passed an order relegating the parties to approach
the Civil Court for an appropriate remedy. On 08.02.2022, the
State Government passed an order under Section 460 of the 2013
Act, condoning the delay in submitting annual returns and
financial statements for the years 2017-18 to 2019-20. The
petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.6322 of 2022 challenging the order
dated 30.01.2022 passed by the IG of Registration. On
13.04.2022, the Additional Chief Secretary wrote a letter to the
IG of Registration stating that the rule prescribing the procedure
for issuing DIN is yet to be framed, and in the interim, the
applications allotting DIN may be kept pending until new rules are
framed. On 30.11.2023, by a common order in W.P.(C) No.6322
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-37-
of 2022 and connected cases, this Court set aside the order dated
30.01.2022 issued by the IG of Registration and remanded the
matter to the IG of Registration to reconsider, after adverting
specifically to the directions in Writ Appeal No.602 of 2021 and
Writ Appeal No.688 of 2021, and to examine whether the
disqualification under Section 167 (2) would apply against the
Directors of the Company and whether they have valid DIN and if
not would they face disqualification on that ground also. It is
thereafter that on 17.02.2024, the IG of registration passed the
impugned order.
24. As stated earlier, on 24.01.2022, by Ext.P1 judgment,
this Court held that the Kerala Act governs the Yogam, set aside
the order issued by the Central Government and declared that
clause 44 of the Articles of Association of SNDP Yogam is ultra
vires the statutory provisions contained in the 1956 Act, read with
the provisions of the Kerala Act. This Court declared that all
members of the Yogam have a right to vote in any election to be
held by the Yogam. The Court had relied on the earlier declaration
of law in Aravindan (supra).
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-38-
25. A Division Bench of this Court later heard and disposed
of RFA No.843 of 2009 by Ext.P2 judgment dated 27.05.2022
(produced in W.P.(C)No.8198 of 2024). The Division Bench
dismissed the appeal filed by the Yogam. While doing so, the
Division Bench considered Ext.P1 judgment and, in paragraphs 25
and 26, held as follows:
“25. It is seen that Ext.B5 order has been challenged before this
court by some of the members of the Yogam in W.P.(C)
Nos.8382 of 2020 and 1385 of 2021 and it was found in the said
case that in the light of the provisions contained in the Kerala
Act, the registration of the Yogam as a Non Trading Company
under the Companies Act, 1882 is deemed to be a registration
in the State of Kerala under the Kerala Act and that the
application under Section 25(6), in the circumstances, should
have been preferred by the Yogam before the State
Government. On the above findings, this Court set aside Ext.B5
order. The relevant findings contained in paragraphs 20 and 21
of the judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.8382 of 2020 and 1385 of 2021
read thus:
“20. Ext.P5 purports to have been issued on an
application submitted before the Central Government
under Section 25(6) of The Companies Act, 1956.
The application has been preferred admittedly after
the Kerala Act came into force in 1962. The apparent
reason for preferring the application before the
Central Government is the observation contained in
the judgment in Aravindhan (supra). In the said
judgment, this Court had only observed that the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-39-
Yogam is not without remedy and they can always
approach the Central Government under Section 25.
This Court had not considered whether such an
application has to be preferred before the Central
Government or the State Government in view of the
Kerala Act. As a matter of fact it was not even
brought to the notice of the Court that the Kerala Act
applies to the Yogam. Thus Ext.P5 cannot be
justified as an order issued on the basis of directions
issued by this Court.
21. By operation of Sections 3 to 6 of the Kerala Act,
the registration of Yogam as a non-trading company
under the Companies Act, 1956 is deemed to be a
registration in the State of Kerala. The Kerala Act is
a statute falling under Entry 32 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the State
Legislature has exclusive power to make laws with
respect to the matter. After coming into force of the
Kerala Act, the Companies Act, 1956 can no longer
govern the Yogam. Sections 3 to 6 of the Kerala Act
in effect facilitates the transfer of governance from
under the Companies Act, 1956 to the Kerala Act.
Section 3 specifically says that the operation of the
Companies Act, 1956 with regard to companies
coming under the Kerala Act, will be subject to such
modifications specified in the Schedule to the Kerala
Act. One such modification made by the Schedule is
that references to “the Central Government” and
“Government” where it refers to the Central
Government shall be construed as references to the
Government of Kerala”. Section 25 of the Companies
Act, 1956 will thus have to be read with the above
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-40-
modification and the necessary result is that an
application under Section 25(6) has to be preferred
before the State Government and not the Central
Government, in the case of the Yogam, after
1.3.1962. Admittedly, Ext.P5 was issued on the basis
of an application preferred much after 1962. Ext.P5
is hence not issued by the competent authority and
hence cannot stand the test of law.”
A perusal of the judgment in the said case also reveals that the
Yogam has not disputed in the case the fact that it is governed
by the Kerala Act, with effect from its promulgation namely,
01.03.1962. It is also revealed from the judgment that in the
light of the provisions contained in the Kerala Act, the Yogam
has even preferred applications before the competent authority
under the central statute to transfer the records relating to it to
the State Government. Another issue considered in the said
case was whether the passage of time and continued
acceptance of Ext.B5 order for several years would legitimise
the order, and the said issue was answered by the court in the
negative. It is however seen that even though the order of
exemption granted by the Central Government was set at
naught by this court in terms of the judgment in W.P.
(C)Nos.8382 of 2020 and 1385 of 2021, having regard to the
ramification of that decision, this court did not set aside all
actions that had been carried out on the basis of the order that
was set aside by clarifying that the judgment will not in any way
nullify the meetings held by the Yogam or elections conducted
earlier. Nevertheless, it is reiterated in the Judgment that the
decision taken in the meetings to restrict the voting right will
not gain sanctity of law. The operative portion of the judgment
reads thus:
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-41-
“… …. …. In the result, Ext.P5 order is set aside. It is
declared that clause 44 of the Articles of Association of
the SNDP Yogam is ultra vires the statutory provisions
contained in the Companies Act, 1956 read with the
provisions of the Kerala Non-Trading Companies
Act,1961. It is declared that all the members of the
Yogam have a right to vote in any election to be held by
the Yogam”.
It is admitted by the parties that the judgment in W.P.(C)
Nos.8382 of 2020 and 1385 of 2021 has become final. We have
perused the judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.8382 of 2020 and 1385 of
2021 and we are in agreement with the findings and conclusion
therein. In other words, the case set out by the plaintiffs that
the exemption granted by the Central Government to the
Yogam from the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, on the
strength of which the members of the Yogam are deprived of
their right to participate in its annual general meeting and elect
the office bearers of the Yogam is bad in law is to be accepted
as correct. Needless to say, the finding to the contrary rendered
by the court below and challenged by plaintiffs 5 and 6 in the
cross objection is unsustainable in law.
26. The only inference possible from the finding that denial of
opportunity to the members of the Yogam to participate in its
annual general meeting and elect the office bearers of the
Yogam is bad in law, is that the Yogam was not managed and
administered by duly elected office bearers right from
19.03.1966. The judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.8382 of 2020 and
1385 of 2021 was rendered on 24.01.2022. The contesting
defendants have no case that they have obtained exemption
from the State Government from the requirements of the
company law in terms of the Kerala Act so as to justify
convening of a representative annual general meeting of the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-42-
members of the Yogam. On the other hand, it has come out that
the office bearers of the Yogam who have assumed office as
early as on 9.8.2015 are continuing even now on the strength
of the invalid provisions in the Articles of Association. Of course,
it is open to the contesting defendants to argue that since the
elections of office bearers of the Yogam held prior to the
judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.8382 of 2020 and 1385 of 2021 have
not been set at naught by this court, though held to be invalid,
the Yogam could obtain exemption from the relevant provisions
of the Company Law from the State Government in terms of the
Kerala Act. But, what would be the situation if the State
Government does not exempt the Yogam from the provisions of
the said statute? Even if the State Government grants
exemption as done by the Central Government, the questions
viz, whether the members of the Yogam could be deprived of
their right to participate in the annual general meeting to elect
its office bearers and whether the election of the office bearers
of the Yogam by the representatives of the members of the
Yogam would be sufficient for the due administration of the
Yogam so as to achieve its objects etc. would remain
unanswered. True, the inability of the Yogam to convene the
annual general meeting of all its members running to several
lakhs is a genuine difficulty to be addressed. Whether a
representative annual general meeting would be a solution for
the said difficulty, is another question which needs to be
addressed. That apart, the fact that the Articles of Association
of the Yogam have been subsequently amended and large
number of persons other than the representatives of the Yogam
have been permitted to participate in the annual general
meeting which elects the office bearers of the Yogam is not
disputed by he contesting defendants. The specific case pleaded
by the plaintiffs in this regard is that Article 44 of the Articles of
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-43-
Association which permits such participation is against the
provisions of the Companies Act and not conducive for a proper
administration of the Yogam. The court below has accepted the
said case of the plaintiffs. Paragraph 51 of the impugned
judgment dealing with the said aspect reads thus:
“Section 41 of the Companies Act defines member
of the company. There is no dispute to the fact that
the annual general body meeting of the company
means the meeting of the members of the
company. Therefore reading of Section 41 along
with section 166 of the Companies Act show that
only members of the company can participate the
general body meeting. Clause 44 of Ext.A4
authorises some other persons like Ex-President,
Vice President, Devaswom Secretary, Yogam
Directors, Union President, Union Secretary, Union
Council etc. to participate the annual general body
meeting even if they are not elected by the
members from their respective unions, sakhas etc.
It seems that these provisions in the Clause 44 of
Ext.A4 bye law is against the spirit of the
Companies Act. Therefore that provision also require
reconsideration and modification”.
We do not find any infirmity in the said finding of the court
below. Are these issues that could be tackled by the Yogam is
the next question. As indicated, if these are issues that could be
tackled by the Yogam, an interference by the Court under
Section 92 of the Code may not be justified. But, as far as the
Yogam is concerned, according to us, the affairs as regards
persons who are entitled to participate in its annual general
meeting to elect its office bearers, appear to be in an untidy
state which cannot be tackled by the Yogam. We are, therefore,
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-44-
of the view that the plaintiffs are justified in seeking direction of
the court under Section 92 of the Code for administration of the
Yogam on that ground. We take this view also for the reason
that having regard to the large number of members of the
Yogam, it is imperative for the Yogam to have a legal
framework for a proper democratic representation of the
members in its annual general meeting in the interests of the
Yogam.”
26. It can be seen from the above passages that the
Division Bench had not only approved Ext.P1 judgment, but also
rendered a positive finding that the Kerala Act governs the
Yogam, that every member has a right to vote, and that the office
bearers of the Yogam who have assumed office as early as on
9.8.2015 are continuing even now on the strength of the invalid
provisions in the Articles of Association.
27. While the hearing of these writ petitions was
progressing and this Court had issued interim directions regarding
the conduct of elections of the Yogam, two persons who were not
party to the Ext.P1 decision, filed a writ appeal, challenging
Ext.P1 judgment, in December 2024. It was contended that the
admissions made by the Counsel for the Yogam, before this Court
during the hearing which culminated in the Ext.P1 judgment, were
not authorised. The writ appeal was admitted after condoning the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-45-
delay of 989 days. The appeal was finally heard and disposed of
by judgment dated 19.12.2025, setting aside Ext.P1 judgment
and directing the competent authority of the Government of India
to act in terms of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated
09.02.2009 in W.P.(C) Nos.22699 of 2005 and 22701 of 2005
after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, without any
avoidable delay. The Court recorded the undertaking of the ASGI
that the said exercise will be completed not later than 3 months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was also
clarified that all aspects noticed in the judgment and not solely
the one referred in the judgment of the High Court of Delhi,
including whether the impugned order of the Government of India
dated 20.08.1974 will stand operative even after the Companies
Act 2013 has come into force, shall be adverted to and answered
specifically. A reading of the judgment suggests that the Division
Bench was not apprised of the earlier Division Bench judgment
Ext.P2 (produced in W.P.(C)No.8198 of 2024), whereby the
conclusions in Ext.P1 judgment had already been approved by a
co-equal bench. The question as to whether the Kerala Act
governs the Yogam assumes importance since this is a case in
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-46-
which the authority under the Kerala Act has exercised jurisdiction
as directed by this Court, to decide whether the respondents 4 to
7 are disqualified. If the Kerala Act does not apply, the entire
exercise was without jurisdiction. Another consequence will be
that the 2013 Act will apply; in which case respondents 4 to 7 will
have no defence at all since there is no case that any of the
financial statements were filed before the Registrar of Companies
as required under the provisions of the 2013 Act or the
28. Based on the arguments advanced by the counsel on
either side, the questions that need to be answered are
formulated and answered in the following paragraphs.
Questions to be considered:
(1) Is the Yogam covered by the Kerala Act or
the Companies Act, 2013?
(2) Are respondents 4 to 7 disqualified under
Section 164(2) of the 2013 Act?
(3) Are the respondents 4 to 7 liable to vacate
office under Section 167 of the 2013 Act?
(4) Are the writ petitions maintainable?
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-47-
29. Question No.(4) – Maintainability of Writ petitions:
The contention of the respondents 4 to 7 is that the writ petition
is not maintainable since for the same relief, two company
petitions filed in 2020 and a suit in 2022 are pending. The order
impugned in these writ petitions is one that was issued based on
the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P13 judgment (produced
in W.P.(C)No.8198 of 2024). The direction issued by this Court
was to the Inspector General of Registration to assess whether
party respondents are disqualified under the provisions of Section
164 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013, after the fiscal year 2014-
2015. The said judgment was passed when the company petitions
and the suit were pending, and this Court was fully aware of the
pendency of the said litigations when this Court directed the
authority under the Kerala Act to decide. It is settled law that
there is no bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in all cases where there is an alternate
remedy is available. It is only a self-imposed restriction by the
Constitutional Court. In Manu S. v. State of Kerala and
others [2020 KHC 454], relied on by the
respondents, this Court, after reiterating the above legal position,
held on facts that the remedy of the petitioners therein was to
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-48-
approach the revisional authority. In the case at hand, since
orders were issued in accordance with directions of this Court on
several occasions, it is a fit case for the exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226.
30. Question (1): The above question is vexed. The
1956 Act, and its predecessor applied to the Yogam until the
coming into force of the Kerala Act in 1961. In 1974, when the
Division Bench passed its judgment in P.C. Aravindan (supra),
there was no contention that the Kerala Act applied,
although it had by then come into force. The Yogam had applied
to the Central Government to restrict members’ voting rights,
following the judgment in P.C. Aravindan (supra), on the
assumption that the Central Act applies. The Central Government
issued the order dated 20.08.1974 on the premise that the 1956
Act applies. On 31.7.1992, by judgment in C.M.A.No.113 of 1992,
the institutions and properties of the SN Trust were brought under
the administration of the Joint Receiver appointed by this Court.
One of the Joint Receivers, Sri M. K. Raghavan, expired on
20.12.1994, and this Court, by order dated 05.01.1995,
appointed Sri N. D. Premachandran in the place of Sri M. K.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-49-
Raghavan as one of the Joint Receivers. OS. No. 45 of 1999 was
filed to frame a scheme for the administration of the Yogam in the
above circumstances. While the above suit was pending, the
Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India, issued an order
on 23.08.2005 stating that the Kerala Act governs the Yogam.
Even though the Yogam had earlier applied to the Central
Government for restriction of the voting rights and obtained
favourable orders in 1974, for reasons best known to the office
bearers, the order of the Central Government issued in 2005 was
accepted, and the Yogam started filing the returns to the
Inspector General of Registration under the Kerala Act.
31. The next stage of the litigation came on 07.02.2009,
when a challenge to the order dated 23.8.2005 was upheld by the
High Court of Delhi and the Central Government was directed to
reconsider whether the Kerala Act governs the Yogam. Even
though there was such a judgment on 07.02.2009, the Yogam
continued to file returns to the Inspector General of Registration.
The returns were not accepted since the original records were not
made available from the office of the Registrar of Companies. The
records were transmitted only in 2019. In the meantime, the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-50-
2013 Act came into force. Respondents 4 to 7 were elected as
Directors after the 2013 Act came into force. However, the Yogam
continued to file the returns to the IG of Registration even
thereafter, without pursuing with the Central Government for any
orders, as was directed by the High Court of Delhi. It also needs
to be noted that an order of the Company Law Tribunal in 2015,
finding that the Kerala Act applies to the Yogam was not
challenged in any proceedings. In the above circumstances, the
writ petitions that led to the Ext.P1 judgment were filed before
this Court seeking to set aside the order issued by the Central
Government in 1974 granting permission to restrict voting rights.
32. As already stated, this Court in Ext.P1, set aside the
order dated 20.08.1974. The judgment was approved by a
Division Bench in Ext.P2 judgment. Later, another Division Bench
set aside the judgment Ext.P1. That leads to a situation where
one Division Bench of this Court held that the Yogam is governed
by the Kerala Act and that the order of the Central Government
granting permission to restrict the voting rights of members was
bad in law, and another Division Bench has, without noticing the
earlier Division Bench and without going into the merits of the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-51-
decision, set aside Ext.P1 and directed the Central Government to
pass orders as directed by the Delhi High Court. The subsequent
Division Bench has not considered the correctness or otherwise of
the first Division Bench. In Bindu K.B. v. The State of Kerala
and others [2014 SCC OnLine Ker. 18497], a learned Single
Judge of this Court had considered a similar issue and held as
follows:
“47. A learned Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh S.K. Mahaboob Ali, Ex-CRPF Constable,
Nandyal v. Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police
Force, New Delhi, 2005 (1) ALT 412 (D.B.), has held that the
judicial propriety and judicial discipline require that binding
precedent shall be necessarily followed. However, while
adopting cautious approach in case of conflicting Judgments of
the Apex Court of co-ordinate Benches cited before the Courts,
Courts may have to carefully scrutinize whether reasons had
been recorded while laying down the ratio and whether the
concerned statutory provisions had been considered and
whether the other prior decisions or the binding decisions also
had been referred to, if any available on the point by the Court
while rendering such Judgments.
48. A Special Bench of Five Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 2003 MP 81, examined in depth the issue of
precedential value of conflicting judgments
of coordinate Benches. It has eventually held that in case of
conflict between judgments of two Division Benches of equal
strength, the decision of earlier Division Bench shall be
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-52-
followed, except when it is explained by the latter
Division Bench in which case the decision of latter
Division Bench shall be binding. Their Lordships have also
observed that no decision of Apex Court has been brought to
their notice which holds that in case of conflict between the two
decisions by equal number of Judges, the later decision is
binding in all circumstances, or the High Courts and subordinate
Courts can follow any decision which is found correct and
accurate to the case under consideration.
49. Indeed, the Special Bench has observed that High Courts
and Subordinate Courts should lack competence to interpret
decisions of Apex Court since that would not only defeat what is
envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution of India but also
militate hierarchical supremacy of Courts. The common thread
which runs through various decisions of Apex Court seems to be
that great value has to be attached to precedent which has
taken the shape of rule being followed by it for the purpose of
consistency and exactness in decisions of Court, unless the
Court can clearly distinguish the decision put up as a precedent
or is per incuriam, having been rendered without noticing some
earlier precedents with which the Court agrees.
50. In my considered opinion, the position would be this: When
the subsequent co-equal bench renders the judgment in
ignorance of the earlier pronouncement of co-equal bench, the
judgment of the previous bench will have binding effect. On the
other hand, if the latter bench refers to the earlier one and
distinguishes it, to that extent of distinction, the latter one
binds.”
33. I am in respectful agreement with the above judgment
and find support to the said view in the judgment of the Hon’ble
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-53-
Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of
Maharashtra [(2014) 16 SCC 623]. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while considering what constitutes per incuriem judgments,
held as follows:
“19. It cannot be over emphasised that the discipline
demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or diminution
of a decision on the application of the per incuriam rule is of
great importance, since without it, certainty of law, consistency
of rulings and comity of courts would become a costly casualty.
A decision or judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a
statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice
of the court. A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if
it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously
pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench; or if the
decision of a High Court is not in consonance with the views of
this Court. It must immediately be clarified that the per
incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio
decidendi and not to obiter dicta. It is often encountered in High
Courts that two or more mutually irreconcilable decisions of the
Supreme Court are cited at the Bar. We think that the inviolable
recourse is to apply the earliest view as the succeeding ones
would fall in the category of per incuriam.”
The first question posed is hence answered, holding that the
Yogam is governed by the Kerala Act.
34. Question (2):
The next question that needs to be considered is whether
respondents 4 to 7 are disqualified under Section 164 to hold
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-54-
office. In Ext.P13 judgment, this Court after setting aside the
order passed by the Inspector General of Registration, directed a
reconsideration of the issue after adverting specifically to the
directions of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.602 of 2021
and 688 of 2021, but bringing within the ambit of the exercise of
evaluation, the further question whether the disqualification under
Section 167 (2) of the Companies Act would apply against the
Directors of the Company. Ext.P10 produced in W.P.(C)No.8198 of
2024 is the judgment of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal.
The Division Bench took note of the submission made by the
counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 that an Adjudicating
Officer to adjudicate in respect of returns of the Yogam for the
period 2006-07 to 2016-2017 has condoned the delay in
submission of returns for the period 2006-07 to 2016-17 on
payment of a fee of ₹6,600/-. The order dated 05.11.2020, which
is titled as an immunity certificate under CFSS 2020, whereby
immunity was granted from prosecution under the Companies Act,
2013, has been reproduced in Ext.P10 judgment. The operative
portion of the Immunity Certificate reads as follows:
“Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under CFSS,
2020 the undersigned hereby issues this certificate to the said
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-55-
company granting immunity from prosecution or imposition of
penalty under the Act subject to the provisions contained in the
scheme in respect of aforesaid document(s) converted in the
application.”
35. The Court thereafter directed the Inspector General of
Registration to consider as to whether disqualification of
respondents 4 to 7 as Directors of the Company under Sections
164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 would arise after the financial
year 2014-2015 when the delay in submission of returns has been
condoned, when the returns were filed in bulk for the years in
question. In the light of the judgments Ext.P10 and Ext.P13, the
issues are two-fold. (i) Whether there was any disqualification
under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013, for the financial
year 2014-15 onwards, and (ii) whether respondents 4 to 7 were
disqualified to hold the office of Director in view of disqualification
under Section 167(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.
DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SECTION 164(2):
36. I shall first consider whether there is any
disqualification under Section 164(2) of the 2013 Act. Section 164
reads as follows:
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-56-
“164. Disqualifications for appointment of
director.-
(1) A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a director of a
company, if–
(a) he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a
competent court;
(b) he is an undischarged insolvent;
(c) he has applied to be adjudicated as an insolvent
and his application is pending;
(d) he has been convicted by a court of any offence,
whether involving moral turpitude or otherwise, and
sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for
not less than six months and a period of five years
has not elapsed from the date of expiry of the
sentence:
Provided that if a person has been convicted of any offence and
sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for a period of seven
years or more, he shall not be eligible to be appointed as a director
in any company;
(e) an order disqualifying him for appointment as a
director has been passed by a court or Tribunal and
the order is in force;
(f) he has not paid any calls in respect of any shares of
the company held by him, whether alone or jointly
with others, and six months have elapsed from the
last day fixed for the payment of the call;
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-57-
(g) he has been convicted of the offence dealing with
related party transactions under Section 188 at any
time during the last preceding five years; or
(h) he has not complied with sub-section (3) of Section
152.
(i) he has not complied with the provisions of sub-
section (1) of Section 165.
(2) No person who is or has been a director of a company which–
(a) has not filed financial statements or annual returns
for any continuous period of three financial years;
or
(b) has failed to repay the deposits accepted by it or
pay interest thereon or to redeem any debentures
on the due date or pay interest due thereon or pay
any dividend declared and such failure to pay or
redeem continues for one year or more,
shall be eligible to be reappointed as a director of that company or
appointed in other company for a period of five years from the
date on which the said company fails to do so:
Provided that where a person is appointed as a director of a
company which is in default of clause (a) or clause (b), he shall not
incur the disqualification for a period of six months from the date
of his appointment.
(3) A private company may by its articles provide for any
disqualifications for appointment as a director in addition to those
specified in sub-sections (1) and (2):
Provided that the disqualifications referred to in clauses (d), (e)
and (g) of sub-section (1) shall continue to apply even if the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-58-
appeal or petition has been filed against the order of conviction or
disqualification.”
A reading of the Section would show that if there is failure to file
financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period
of 3 financial years, no person who is or has been a Director of
the Company which had committed such default, shall be eligible
to be reappointed as a Director of that Company or appointed in
any other Company for a period of 5 years from the date on which
the Company failed to do so. Admittedly, the financial statements
of the Yogam were accepted after condoning the delay and upon
payment of ₹6,600/-on 05.11.2020. That is to say, the financial
statements for the financial years 2014-2015 to 2016-2017,
which ought to have been filed by 2017-18 to 2019-20,
respectively, to escape the rigour of the statutory provision, were
filed only on 05.11.2020, after the period of 3 years had elapsed.
In the case of the returns for the year 2014-15, the delay exceeds
5 years.
37. The CFSS 2020 is a scheme introduced under Section
460 read with Section 403 of the 2013 Act. A copy of the scheme
has been produced as Ext.P18 along with W.P.(C) No. 8198 of
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-59-
2024. Clause 6 of Ext.P18, which gives details of the scheme in
clause 6(iv), states as follows:
“(iv) Manner of payment of normal fees for filing of belated
documents and seeking immunity under the Scheme – Every
defaulting company shall be required to pay normal fees as
prescribed under the Companies (Registration Offices and Fee)
Rules, 2014 on the date of filing of each belated document and no
additional fee shall be payable. Immunity from the launch of
prosecution or proceedings for imposing penalty shall be provided
only to the extent such prosecution or the proceedings for
imposing penalty under the Act pertain to any delay associated
with the filings of belated documents. Any other consequential
proceedings, including any proceedings involving interests
of any shareholder or any other person qua the company or
its directors or key managerial personnel would not be
covered by such immunity.” (emphasis supplied)
38. It can thus be seen that the immunity certificate only
grants protection against prosecution or proceedings for imposing
a penalty under the Act, for the non-filing of the documents within
the prescribed time. No other consequential proceedings are
covered by such an immunity certificate.
39. Section 403 of the 2013 Act says that any document
required to be submitted must be submitted within the time
specified in the relevant provision on payment of the prescribed
fee. The proviso to Section 403 says that such documents can be
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-60-
submitted after the expiry of the period so provided, on payment
of such additional fee as may be prescribed, which will be
without prejudice to any other legal action or liability
under the Act. Section 403(2) says that where a company fails
to submit any document under sub-section (1) before the expiry
of the period specified in the relevant section, the company and
the officers of the company who are in default shall, without
prejudice to the liability for the payment of fee and additional fee,
be liable for the penalty or punishment provided under the Act for
such failure or default. Thus, the liability for penalty or
punishment is again emphasised, while permitting the delayed
submission of the documents.
40. Section 460 of the 2013 Act deals with the power to
condone delays. It says that where any document required to be
filed with the Registrar is not filed within the time specified, the
Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
condone the delay. The power can hence be exercised only by the
Central Government. In the case at hand, in view of my finding
that the Kerala Act applies, the word “Central Government” will
have to be read as “State Government”. No provision permits the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-61-
exercise of power under Section 460 by a delegate. A reading of
Ext.P18 Scheme along with Sections 403 and 460 leads one to
the conclusion that the scheme only provides for delayed
submission on payment of the fee prescribed therein and does not
in any manner save the legal consequences spelt out in the
statute, except the imposition of penalty or punishment. It is
pertinent to note that neither Section 403 nor Section 460 refers
to Section 164 of the Act. The language of the above Sections is
not ambiguous in any manner. Nothing in those provisions has the
effect of undoing a disqualification which is incurred by the
operation of Section 164(2). In view of the statutory provisions,
the respondents cannot be heard to contend that the condonation
of the delay in filing the annual returns will have the effect of
undoing the statutory consequence. There is yet another reason
for coming to the above conclusion. The Company, its
shareholders and its directors are distinct individuals, each being
a legal entity. The Company is a body corporate having perpetual
succession, and it cannot cease to exist for not filing the annual
returns in time. Hence, there is justification for having a provision
for condoning the delay in filing the returns. Directors who are
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-62-
distinct from the Company and who are in control of the affairs of
the Company are dealt with differently by the Act, by prescribing
certain consequences if they fail to file the annual returns
continuously for three financial years. They are not entitled to the
benefit of the condonation of delay available to the Company.
That is also the reason why Section 403(2) says that for the
default of the company, the company as well as the officers who
are in default will be liable for the penalty or punishment provided
under the Act. The very purpose of having such provisions and
the CFSS 2020 can only be seen as a protection granted to the
Company from default committed by human agencies like the
Directors. They cannot be seen as provisions which have the
effect of removing the accountability and instead should be seen
as provisions for fixing responsibility.
Do the maxims ‘lex non cogit ad impossibilia ‘ and ‘impotentia
excusat legem ‘, apply to the case at hand?
41. The counsel for the respondents 4 to 7contended that
there was no wilful default in filing the annual returns. It is
contended that though the returns were filed, they were not
accepted by the Registrar since the original records relating to the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-63-
Company were not available. The argument is that since there
was an impossibility to comply with the statutory requirement, the
Company cannot be said to have defaulted. Reliance is placed on
the maxims ‘lex non cogit ad impossibilia’ and ‘impotentia excusat
legem’, to support the contention. The counsel placed reliance on
the judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence
Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
[(2022) 3 SCC 321] to submit that a person is excused from
doing an act which is not possible of performance. The judgment
was rendered with reference to the two legal maxims referred to
above. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question
whether a person can be held liable for not deducting TDS, when
the concerned provisions were not even in the statute book, and
applying the above two legal maxims, held that it was a case
where there was an impossibility to obey the law. The law laid
down in the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of this
case. The judgment in Huda and another v. Dr.Babeswar
Kanhar and another [(2005) 1 SCC 191], also only lays down
the general principle that a party prevented from doing an act by
circumstances beyond his control can do so at the first
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-64-
subsequent opportunity, and the law does not compel
performance of an impossibility. The Apex Court in the above
judgment was considering the correctness of forfeiting the earnest
money paid for allotment of a plot, on the ground that the
communication of non-acceptance of allotment was received after
the last date fixed for the purpose. It was a case where the last
day fell on a holiday, making the performance impossible. The
scope of the above maxims was recently stated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the decision in Additional Director General
Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh
Kumar & Co. Impex (P) Ltd. [(2026) 1 SCC 756] thus:
“39. We quote para 15 of the judgment [Presidential Poll, In re,
(1974) 2 SCC 33] referred to above which reads thus : SCC pp.
49-50)
“15. The impossibility of the completion of the
election to fill the vacancy in the office of the
President before the expiration of the term of office in
the case of death of a candidate as may appear from
Section 7 of the 1952 Act does not rob Article 62(1)
of its mandatory character. The maxim of
law impotentia excusat legem is intimately connected
with another maxim of law lex non cogit ad
impossibilia. Impotentia excusat legem is that when
there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform
the mandatory part of the law that impotentia
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-65-
excuses. The law does not compel one to do that
which one cannot possibly perform. ‘Where the law
creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to
perform it, without any default in him, and has no
remedy over it, there the law will in general excuse
him’. Therefore, when it appears that the performance
of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been
rendered impossible by circumstances over which the
persons interested had no control, like the act of God,
the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse.
Where the act of God prevents the compliance with
the words of a statute, the statutory provision is not
denuded of its mandatory character because of
supervening impossibility caused by the act of God.
(See Broom’s Legal Maxims, 10th Edn. at pp. 162-63
and Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn. at p. 268.)”
42. To attract the doctrine, there should be an impossibility
of performance, and no remedy being available over it. In the
case at hand, the circumstance stated is that the Registrar
refused to accept the returns. The above contention must be
appreciated in the light of certain related facts. In 1974, the
Yogam had approached the Central Government and got an
exemption regarding the voting rights. This was at a time after
the Kerala Act had come into force, and the exemption had to be
sought from the State Government and not the Central
Government. In 2005, the Central Government issued orders
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-66-
stating that the Kerala Act applies to the Yogam. The Yogam
accepted the said order. Later in 2009, the order issued by the
Central Government in 2005 was set aside by the Delhi High
Court, and the Central Government was asked to reconsider
whether the Kerala Act applies. It can be seen from the
judgment of the Delhi High Court that the Yogam had taken
a stand that the Kerala Act applies. However, neither the
petitioners before the Delhi High Court nor the Yogam pursued the
matter with the Central Government and the Yogam wanted to
proceed on the basis that the Kerala Act applies. However, when
the writ petitions that led to Ext.P1 judgment were filed, the
Yogam shifted their stand and contended that the Kerala Act
would not apply. This Court held that the Kerala Act will apply. The
Yogam challenged the judgment in writ appeal, and Ext.P1
judgment was reversed. It is not, hence, a case of impossibility of
complying with the statutory requirement. The persons in control
of the affairs of the Yogam were changing stands to suit their
purposes at different stages. If the stand of the Yogam was that
the Kerala Act applies, they should have submitted the annual
returns before the Registrar of Companies. The Yogam has no
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-67-
case that this has been done. It is hence a case where the Yogam
wanted to contend before this Court that the Kerala Act does not
apply, and at the same time, they submitted the returns to the
authority under the Kerala Act. Such actions cannot hence be
considered as bona fide. After creating an obstacle themselves,
the Yogam cannot be heard to take shelter under the above-
mentioned maxims. This is not a case where the maxims can be
applied.
Does the condonation of delay remove the disqualification
incurred?
43. Another argument advanced by the respondents 4 to 7
is that once the delay is condoned, the difference in status
between the returns filed within the time and those filed after the
expiry of the limitation would be obliterated. The above
contention cannot be legally sustained. True, such a principle
applies where an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
is allowed, and a proceeding is taken on file. The same yardstick
cannot be applied to a case in which the delay in filing the returns
creates different consequences for the Company and its Officers.
Reliance is placed on the decisions of the High Court of Allahabad
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-68-
in Fateh Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mathura
& Ors. [2004 SCC OnLine All. 1967], Paras Nath v. Deputy
Director of Consolidation [2008 SCC OnLine All. 164] and
the decision of the High Court of Uttaranchal in Balram v.
Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. [2009 SCC OnLine
Utt. 956] to submit that once the delay is condoned, the
difference in status between the returns filed within time and the
returns filed after the expiry of limitation would be obliterated.
The judgments in Fateh Singh (supra) and Parasnath Supra
(supra) relate to the filing of appeals along with a petition for
condonation of delay, and the Court held that once the delay is
condoned, the appeal must be treated as one filed within time.
The same is the effect of the judgment in Balram (supra). The
law laid down in those judgments cannot be applied to cases
where a statutory consequence is spelt out if there is a delay in
filing the annual returns. Reliance was also placed on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramlal, Motilal and
Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361]. There
again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with an application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the Court held that
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-69-
where it was shown to the satisfaction of the court that an appeal
was presented after the expiration of the period of limitation
owing to the appellant being misled by an order, practice or
judgment of the High Court, the said appeal shall for all purposes
be deemed to have been presented within the period of limitation.
The above judgment also does not lay down a proposition that the
statutory consequences of the delay in filing the annual returns
will be undone on the condonation of delay. As far as the
Company is concerned, once the delay is condoned under Section
460 of the 2013 Act, the consequences prescribed in Sections 403
and 460 alone will follow. However, in the case of Directors, a
different consequence is prescribed under Section 164, which
cannot be undone by the condonation of delay under Section 460.
The above contention is hence rejected.
Does the Non obstante clause in Section 460 have the effect
of nullifying the consequences spelt out in Section 164(2)?
44. The counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 contended that
Section 460 begins with a non obstante clause and hence there
can be no disqualification under Section 164, once the delay is
condoned under Section 460. Non obstante does not override all
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-70-
provisions. Section 460 only says about the condonation of delay.
It does not speak about the disqualifications that have already
occurred. The way a non obstante clause should be understood
has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Bihar & Ors.v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors.
[(2005) 9 SCC 129] in paragraph 45, which is extracted below:
“45. A non obstante clause is generally appended to a section
with a view to give the enacting part of the section, in case of
conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in the same or
other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to
saying that in spite of the provisions of the Act mentioned in
the non obstante clause, the provision following it will have its full
operation or the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause
will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or
the provision in which the non obstante clause occurs.
(See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn., by Justice
G.P. Singh — Chapter V, Synopsis IV at pp. 318 and 319). … …”
45. The decisions in Union of India v. G.M.Kokil [1984
Supp. SCC 196] and Om Prakash v. Union of India [2011
(14) SCC 1], which were cited during the hearing do no take any
different view from the judgment in State of Bihar (supra).
Applying the above principle, the enacting part of Section 460
empowers the Central Government to condone, for reasons
recorded in writing, the delay in filing a document with the
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-71-
Registrar under any provision of the Act. The consequences of the
delay stated in Section 164(2) do not impede the operation of the
enacting part of Section 460. The addition of the words
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act” can only refer to
such provisions in the Act which will be an obstacle to the
condoning of delay and nothing more. Hence, the non obstante
clause does not in any manner affect the consequences spelt out
in Section 164(2). In the light of the above discussions, I
hold that the consequences spelt out in Section 164(2),
which are statutory, will not be affected by the
condonation of delay in filing the returns, whether under
CFSS 2020 or under Section 460 of the 2013 Act.
The maxim Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua
propria and its application :
46. The next argument advanced by the Counsel for the
respondents is that Section 164(2) only makes the respondents 4
to 7 ineligible to be reappointed as a Director of that company or
appointed in other company for a period of five years from the
date on which the said company failed to file the returns, and,
since the period of 5 years is already over, the ineligibility no
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-72-
longer continues. Such an argument cannot be countenanced. It
is a well-established legal principle that no man can take
advantage of his own wrong. In Union of India v. Maj. Gen.
Madan Lal Yadav [(1996) 4 SCC 127], the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while considering whether a trial under the Army Act was
barred by limitation since the accused was available for trial owing
to his escape from detention, held as follows:
“28. Even if narrow interpretation is plausible, on the facts in
this case, we have no hesitation to conclude that the trial began
on 25-2-1987 on which date the court martial assembled,
considered the charge and the prosecution undertook to produce
the respondent who was found escaped from the open detention,
before the Court. It is an admitted position that GCM assembled
on 25-2-1987. On consideration of the charge, the proceedings
were adjourned from day to day till the respondent appeared on
2-3-1987. It is obvious that the respondent had avoided trial to
see that the trial would not get commenced. Under the scheme
of the Act and the Rules, presence of the accused is a
precondition for commencement of trial. In his absence and until
his presence was secured, it became difficult, nay impossible, to
proceed with the trial of the respondent-accused. In this behalf,
the maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua
propria — meaning no man can take advantage of his own wrong
— squarely stands in the way of avoidance by the respondent
and he is estopped to plead bar of limitation contained in Section
123(2). In Broom’s Legal Maxim (10th Edn.) at p. 191 it is
stated:
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874-73-
“… it is a maxim of law, recognised and
established, that no man shall take
advantage of his own wrong; and this
maxim, which is based on elementary
principles, is fully recognised in courts of
law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of
illustration from every branch of legal
procedure.”
The reasonableness of the rule being manifest, we proceed at
once to show its application by reference to decided cases. It
was noted therein that a man shall not take advantage of his
own wrong to gain the favourable interpretation of the law. In
support thereof, the author has placed reliance on another
maxim frustra legis auxilium invocat quaerit qui in legem
committit. He relies on Perry v. Fitzhowe [(1846) 8 QB 757 : 15
LJ QB 239] . At p. 192, it is stated that if a man be bound to
appear on a certain day, and before that day the obligee puts
him in prison, the bond is void. At p. 193, it is stated that “it is
moreover a sound principle that he who prevents a thing from
being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has
occasioned”. At p. 195, it is further stated that “a wrong doer
ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own
wrong”. At p. 199 it is observed that “the rule applies to the
extent of undoing the advantage gained where that can be done
and not to the extent of taking away a right previously
possessed.”
47. A similar view was expressed in the judgments in Lily
Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224] and Union of
India & Ors. v. Prohlad Guha [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865].
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-74-
Recently, in Binod Pathak & Ors. v. Shankar Choudhary &
Ors. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1411], the Apex Court considered
the distinction between the two legal maxims nullus
commodum capere potest de injuria sua propia and ex injuria ius
non oritur, and the Court held as follows:
“48. A perusal of the aforesaid makes it abundantly clear, that
while the maxim ‘ex injuria ius non oritur’ is a principle governing
the general spirit of the jurisprudence of “rights”, that a right
cannot emanate or emerge from a wrongful act, the maxim
‘nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria’, on the
other hand, confirms the general rule of equity and prudence that
no one can benefit from their own wrongdoing. The scope of the
latter is wider than the former. The first maxim explains that the
legitimacy of a right stands vitiated if such right, which otherwise
would have been legitimately exercisable, accrues from a
wrongdoing of the person claiming under or exercising such right.
Although, under the law, a right may arise even if from a
wrongdoing, yet if exercise of such right is allowed, it would
malign the very jurisprudential underpinning of ‘right’ and ‘duty’.
A right has a legal sanctity and backing to it, in order for it to
have a legitimising effect, since the jural correlative of a right is
duty. More particularly, the term “right” is very specific to not
include every benefit, profit or advantage. The maxim solidifies
the faith in law that no wrong action will be given a legal validity.
The legal validity of a right flows from other legal norms or from
a source of law [See : Niel MacCormick, “Rights in
Legislation”, Law, Morality and Society : Essays in Honour
of H.L.A. Hart, P.M.S. Hacker, and Joseph Raz (eds). 189-
206, Oxford : Clarendon Press (1977)].
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-75-
49. The maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua
propria, on the other hand lays itself as a as a rule of equity. An
advantage falling from wrongdoing may be a legal or illegal
advantage. The maxim dictates that, be that as it may, no profit
or advantage of a person’s wrongful act may be validated by the
seal of law. It may very well happen, that the advantage may be
legal or illegal, but the validation of law will not be extended to it
by the law. Thus, the courts that have the discretion to allow or
disallow the availment of such advantage in ordinary
circumstances, are constrained to not permit a person who has
committed a wrongful act to benefit from the advantageous
position afforded to him because of such wrongful action as a
matter of justice, equity and fairness. Fellmeth and Horwitz
rightly extend an illustration, that when a person himself
destroys evidence, he cannot take shelter of the defence of lack
of evidence. The advantage falling from the wrong will not be
validated by the courts of law.”
48. Admittedly, respondents 4 to 7 are continuing in office
after the expiry of their term. Going by the dictum in the Ext.P1
judgment approved by the Ext.P2 judgment, even their election to
office in 2015 cannot be legally justified since not all members
were permitted to vote. In Ext.P2, a Division Bench has held that
the Directors had assumed office on 9.8.2015 and are continuing
even now on the strength of the invalid provisions in the Articles
of Association. Without conducting an election, the respondents 4
to 7 have managed to be at the helm of affairs of the Yogam. In
the above factual background, if the contention of the counsel for
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-76-
the respondents 4 to 7 that the ineligibility has ended is accepted,
it would, in effect, be subscribing to and perpetuating an illegality.
In Madan Lal Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the trial began on the day the Court Martial assembled,
though the accused, who had escaped detention, was brought
before the Court Martial more than one year later and negatived
the contention of limitation. Inferentially, in the case at hand, the
only interpretation possible is that the period of 5 years
contemplated in Section 164(2) will begin from the day the
respondents cease to be Directors. This is more so, since
admittedly, there has been no election held after 2015. I hence
hold that the respondents 4 to 7 have become disqualified under
Section 164(2) of the 2013 Act.
DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SECTION 164(1):
49. Section 164(1)(h) says that a person shall not be
eligible for appointment as a Director of a company, if he has not
complied with sub-section (3) of section 152. The question is
whether any disqualification is attracted for not having a Director
Identification Number (DIN). Section 152(3) of the 2013 Act says
that no person shall be appointed as a Director of a company
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-77-
unless he has been allotted the DIN under Section 154 or any
other number as may be prescribed under Section 153. Section
152(4) says that every person proposed to be appointed as a
Director shall furnish his DIN or such other number as may be
prescribed under Section 153 and a declaration that he is not
disqualified to become a Director under the Act. Every individual
intending to be appointed as a Director shall make an application
for allotment of DIN as provided under Section 153. Under
Section 154, the Central Government shall within one month from
the receipt of an application under Section 153, allot a DIN to the
applicant in the manner prescribed. Section 155 prohibits
applying, obtaining or possession of another DIN by a person who
has already been allotted a DIN under Section 154. Thus, no
person can have two DINs. Every Director on obtaining a DIN
must intimate the company/companies in which he is a Director
and the companies in turn should intimate this fact to the
Registrar of Companies under Section 157. It can thus be seen
that having a DIN is a compulsory requirement for a person to be
appointed as a director. Section 164(1)(h) says that a person
shall not be eligible for appointment as a Director of a Company if
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-78-
he has not complied with sub-section (3) of Section 152. The
above provision is a re-affirmation of what is contained in Section
152. The contention of the petitioners is that except 16 Directors,
nobody else possess a DIN. It is further contended that the 4 th
respondent and the 6th respondent are in possession of 2 DINs,
which itself is a disqualification.
50. Yet another contention that is taken is that 5 of the
persons among the 16 persons who possess DIN are persons who
have been nominated to the Board, which is impermissible under
the Companies Act. In the case on hand, since the Yogam is
governed by the Kerala Act, the authority to issue DIN is the
Government of Kerala, since the words “Central Government” in
Section 154 will have to be read as the “State Government”.
Admittedly, no rules have been framed for the allotment of DIN by
the Government of Kerala. As such, it cannot be said that any of
the Directors possess a DIN. The DIN that some of the Directors
are in possession of are ones issued by the Central Government.
A question then arises whether the said DINs can be made use of
by the said Directors to submit that they have complied with the
requirement under Section 152. There is also a question whether
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-79-
such a condition can be insisted upon if there is an impossibility of
performance. Even though this Court had directed the Inspector
General of Registration to consider the question of disqualification
under Section 164(2) as well as the disqualification owing to not
having a DIN, Ext.P16 order (in W.P.(C)No.8198/2024) does not
consider the question regarding DIN and all that is stated is that
the issue is pending with the Government. In the light of the
admitted facts, I find that there is a disqualification attracted for
non-compliance with Section 152(3) of the Companies Act, since
admittedly none of the Directors have a DIN issued by the State
Government. Having a DIN is a pre-condition for appointment as
a Director. Hence, none of the appointments of the Directors of
the Yogam after 2014 (when the requirement of having a DIN was
introduced in the statute book) are in accordance with the
provisions of the statute. It necessarily follows that all of them
are holding office against the provisions of the Statute. In Ext.P2
judgment, a Division Bench of this Court has already held that the
Directors are holding and continuing in office on the strength of
the invalid provisions in the Articles of Association.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-80-
51. In Sajith Kannanunni Nair v. Union of India [2021
SCC OnLine Mad. 49], the Court was considering a case of
disqualification as a Director under Section 164(2) of the
Companies Act, 2013. The learned Single Judge followed the
Division Bench judgment of the same court in Writ Appeal
No.569 and others of 2020 in Meethelaveetil, Kaitheli
Muralidharan V. Union of India. That was a case where there
was a deactivation of the DIN pursuant to disqualification under
Section 164(2). The Court held that the Registrar of Companies
cannot deactivate the DIN. On facts, the court was dealing with
the case of a person was a director of several companies and the
disqualification was on the ground of not filing financial
statements for 3 consecutive years. In Zacharia
Maramkandathil Mohan & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.
[2021 (3) KHC 550], a learned Single Judge of this Court
considered the question whether Sections 164 and 92 of the 2013
Act are unconstitutional. This Court held that the provisions were
not unconstitutional. It was held that Section 164 (2) can have
only prospective operation. The above judgments do not apply to
the fact situation in these cases.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-81-
52. As per the Statute, a DIN has to be issued by the
Government within one month of the application. It was hence
for the Directors concerned to have taken steps for obtaining the
DIN from the Government. This Court is not, in these writ
petitions, called upon to issue any directions to the Government
regarding the issuance of DIN to the Directors of the Board. On
the admitted facts, it has to be held that none of the Directors
who are holding office now have complied with the requirement of
Section 152(3) and are hence disqualified under Section 164(1) of
the 2013 Act.
Question No.(3):
53. The next question is whether by virtue of Section 167,
the Directors will vacate office on having been disqualified under
Section 164. Section 167 reads thus:
“167. Vacation of office of director.–(1) The office of a
director shall become vacant in case–
(a) he incurs any of the disqualifications specified in
Section 164:
Provided that where he incurs disqualification under sub-section
(2) of Section 164, the office of the director shall become vacant
in all the companies, other than the company which is in default
under that sub-section.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-82-
(b) he absents himself from all the meetings of the
Board of Directors held during a period of twelve
months with or without seeking leave of absence of
the Board;
(c) he acts in contravention of the provisions of Section
184 relating to entering into contracts or
arrangements in which he is directly or indirectly
interested;
(d) he fails to disclose his interest in any contract or
arrangement in which he is directly or indirectly
interested, in contravention of the provisions of
Section 184;
(e) he becomes disqualified by an order of a court or the
Tribunal;
(f) he is convicted by a court of any offence, whether
involving moral turpitude or otherwise and sentenced
in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than
six months:
Provided that the office shall not be vacated by the director
in case of orders referred to in clauses (e) and (f)–
(i) for thirty days from the date of conviction or
order of disqualification;
(ii) where an appeal or petition is preferred
within thirty days as aforesaid against the
conviction resulting in sentence or order,
until expiry of seven days from the date on
which such appeal or petition is disposed of;
or
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-83-
(iii) where any further appeal or petition is
preferred against order or sentence within
seven days, until such further appeal or
petition is disposed of.
(g) he is removed in pursuance of the provisions of this
Act;
(h) he, having been appointed a director by virtue of his
holding any office or other employment in the
holding, subsidiary or associate company, ceases to
hold such office or other employment in that
company.
(2) If a person, functions as a director even when he knows that
the office of director held by him has become vacant on
account of any of the disqualifications specified in sub-
section (1), he shall be punishable with fine which shall not
be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to five
lakh rupees.
(3) Where all the directors of a company vacate their offices
under any of the disqualifications specified in sub-section
(1), the promoter or, in his absence, the Central
Government shall appoint the required number of directors
who shall hold office till the directors are appointed by the
company in the general meeting.
(4) A private company may, by its articles, provide any other
ground for the vacation of the office of a director in addition
to those specified in sub-section (1).
54. The counsel for respondents 4 to 7 contended that
Section 164(2) does not prohibit continuation in office, even if
there is a default. It is argued that the section only makes a
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-84-
Director ineligible to be re-appointed. It is submitted as per the
proviso to Section 167(1) that if a disqualification is incurred
under Section 164(2), the office of the Director in the company
which is in default will not become vacant. It is hence argued
that, on a combined reading of Sections 164 and 167, even if
there is a default by the Company, there is no vacating of office
contemplated. The counsel draws support from the judgment in
Yashodara Shroff v. Union of India & Anr. [ILR 2019 Kar.
3768] and the decision in Kaynet Finance Ltd. v. Verona
Capital Ltd. [2019 SCC OnLine Bombay 1203]. A mere
reading of the Section would show that the Office of the Director
does not become vacant immediately on non-compliance with the
requirement of Section 164(2). Section 164(2) also only says of
ineligibility to be reappointed. It does not state that the Director
of a Company, which is in default, immediately vacates office. The
argument on behalf of respondents 4 to 7 that a disqualification
under Section 164(2) does not call for a direction restraining the
respondents 4 to 7 from functioning as Directors of the Yogam is
hence well-founded. It is only the consequences which flow from
the operation of Section 164(2) that would apply to such persons.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-85-
However, that may not be true in the case of disqualification
incurred under Section 164(1)(h).
55. Under Section 167(1) of the Act, the office of a
Director shall become vacant in case he incurs any of the
disqualifications specified in Section 164. (emphasis
supplied). The proviso to Section 167(1)(a) only protects
Directors who incur disqualification under sub-section (2) of
Section 164. A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a
Director if he has not complied with sub-section (3) of Section
152, going by Section 164(1)(h). Admittedly, in the case on hand,
respondents 4 to 7 have not complied with sub-section (3) of
Section 152 and are hence not eligible for appointment as
Directors. The question then is whether the disqualification, which
was existing even at the time of appointment of respondents 4 to
7 as Directors, will not invite any consequence by the operation of
Section 167. A reading of Section 167(1)(a) may suggest that the
appointment as Director precedes the disqualification. However,
when read along with Section 152(3) which mandates that the
person to be appointed has a DIN, the Section 167(1)(a) cannot
be understood as suggesting that the disqualification occurred
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-86-
after becoming a Director. It can only mean that a person who is
appointed as a Director without complying with Section 152(3)
will vacate the office. Hence the only conclusion possible is that
the Office of Director in the case of respondents 4 to 7 will stand
vacated by operation of Section 167(1)(a).
56. The next issue is regarding correctness of Ext.P16
order which has been challenged. Ext.P16, though it is a very
elaborate order, except in the last paragraph which is captioned as
Order, there is no consideration of the issues directed to be
considered. Even in the last paragraph, all that is stated is as
follows;
“On the basis of the statements and other documents
submitted by the parties, perusing all the relevant provisions
of the Companies Act, 2013 and other facts and after
examining the matter in detail, came to conclusion that the
Directors of SNDP Yogam No. 995/1903 are not disqualified for
the period of 2014-2015,2015-2016. ”
The order is bad for several reasons. This Court had directed the
Inspector General of Direct Registration to consider the question
of disqualification after the financial year 2014-2015. However,
the finding is restricted to 2014-15 and 2015-16. None of the
subsequent years have even been considered for the purpose of
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-87-
disqualification. The order only extracts the submissions made by
the counsel appearing for the applicants and the respondents
before the Inspector General of Registration. Almost the entire
order has been devoted for extracting the contentions and
pleadings, and the relevant provisions of the Companies Act.
(Sections 152, 153, 156, 157, 164 and 167). Thereafter, the order
proceeds to identify the points that need decision in the following
manner;
“Disqualification of directors of SNDP Yogam under sections
164(2) &167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 as SNDP
Yogam did not file financial statements/returns for consecutiveperiod of 3 years from 2013- 2014 to 2015-2016. ”
57. Thereafter it is stated that the State Government had
condoned the delay in submitting the returns and authorised the
Deputy Inspector General of Registration(Licensing) and Kerala
Non-Trading Company Registrar as the Adjudicating Officer to
adjudicate the penalty regarding filing of annual returns of the
Yogam from 2006-07 to 2016-17. It is stated that immunity
certificate had been issued to the Yogam as per CFSS 2020.
However, the crucial question whether the disqualification under
Section 164(2) exists despite condonation of the delay in filing of
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-88-
returns has not even been considered. In fact, that alone was the
issue that was directed to be considered. Hence, I find that
Ext.P16 cannot be legally sustained since there is absolutely no
consideration of the question of disqualification.
58. As I have found that respondents 4 to 7 have vacated
the office of the Director in view of Section 167(1), a question
arises as to what should follow. Even though the question of
disqualification of other Directors have not been considered in this
judgment, if the law which has been laid down is applied in their
cases, necessarily, the fall out will be that they will also be
disqualified. The functioning of the Yogam cannot come to a total
standstill, since elections are yet to be conducted. The Statute
provides an answer for such situation also in the form of Section
167(3) which says that the Government shall appoint the required
number of Directors who shall hold office till Directors are
appointed by the company in the general meeting. The word
“Central Government” in Section 167(3) will have to be read as
“State Government” in the case of the Yogam. It is hence for the
Government to do the needful by appointing the required number
of Directors to continue the functioning of the Yogam and to
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-89-
ensure that an election is conducted at the earliest and a proper
Board of Directors is put in place. Section 167(2) says about
punishment to persons who function as Directors even after
knowing that the Office of Director held by him had become
vacant. Those are aspects which the Inspector General of
Registration will have to look into and pass necessary orders.
CONCLUSION:
59. In the light of the discussions and findings in the
preceding paragraphs, these writ petitions are disposed of with
the following directions and findings.
(i) The order Ext.P16, produced in W.P.
(C)No.8198/2024 is quashed.
(ii) It is declared that respondents 4 to 7 are not
eligible to be re-appointed as Directors in view
of non-compliance with the requirements of
Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.
(iii) It is declared that no person shall be eligible to
be appointed/re-appointed as Director of the
SNDP Yogam unless they possess a DIN which
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-90-
is issued by the State Government under the
Provisions of Kerala Act read with the
(iv) It is declared that respondents 4 to 7 are not
holding office in accordance with the
requirements of the Kerala Act read with the
Companies Act, 2013 since admittedly none of
them have a DIN issued by the State
Government.
(v) Respondents 4 to 7 are declared to have
vacated office under Section 167(1)(a) of the
Companies Act, 2013 as they are disqualified
under Section 164(1)(h) of the Act.
(vi) The 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.8095 of 2024
is directed to take necessary measures
contemplated under Section 167(3) for
appointing required number of Directors to hold
office till Directors are appointed by the
Company in the general meeting.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-91-
(vii) The Inspector General of Registration (2 nd
respondent in W.P.(C)No.8095 of 2024) is
directed to take consequential action under
Section 167(2) in view of the declaration that
respondents 4 to 7 have vacated office of the
Director owing to disqualification under Section
164(1)(h).
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
dsn
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-92-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 8095 OF 2024
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18-08-2020 SENT BY PETITIONER NO.1 TO
RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE IMMUNITY CERTIFICATE
UNDER CFSS, 2020
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05-01-2021
IN W.P(C).NO.19266 OF 2020
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-03-2021 IN
REVIEW PETITION NO.113 OF 2021 IN W.P(C).NO.
19266 OF 2020
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-01-2022
IN W.A NO.602 OF 2021 AND 688 OF 2021
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF FAQ FROM THE
WEBSITE OF THE MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.IGR/4487/2020-L3
DATED 30-01-2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF G.O NO.72/2002/TAXES DATED
08-02-2022
Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE YOGAM
Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-01-2022
IN W.P(C) NO.8382 OF 2020
Exhibit-P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-05-2022
IN RFA NO.843 OF 2009
Exhibit-P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-11-2023
IN W.P(C) NO.6322 OF 2022
Exhibit-P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED 01-01-
2024
Exhibit-P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL.HEARING NOTE DATED
08-01-2024
Exhibit-P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-02-2024
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-93-
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: IGR/338/2018-L3
THIRUVANATHAPURAM DATED 05.11.2020
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CFSS 2020 DATED 30.03.2020
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
19.11.2020 IN WPC NO 19266/2020 FILED BY THE
IG OF REGISTRATION
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(a) A TRUE COPY OF DIN ALLOTTED TO RESPONDENT
NO:4
Exhibit R4(b) A TRUE COPY OF DIN ALLOTTED TO RESPONDENT
NO:5
Exhibit R4(c) A TRUE COPY OF DIN ALLOTTED TO RESPONDENT
NO:6
Exhibit R4(d) A TRUE COPY OF DIN ALLOTTED TO RESPONDENT
NO: 7
Exhibit R4(e) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/11/2021 IN
I.A.NO.1/2021 IN O.S NO.298/2021 BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM
Exhibit R4(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER
NO.J3/50/2022/TAXES DATED 13/04/2022
Exhibit R4 (g) A TRUE COPY OF LIST OF 60 DIRECTORS OF
YOGAM/OUT OF 98 TO WHOM DIN ARE ALLOTTED
Exhibit R4(h) THE COPY OF THE LETTER PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT
R3(C) IN W.P.(C) NO.6322/2022
Exhibit R4(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
09/02/2009 IN W.P.(C)NOS.22699/2005,
22700/2005 AND 22701/2005
Exhibit R4(j) THE TRUE COPY OF CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING
THE ANNUAL RETURNS AS EVIDENCED FROM ORDER
NO.IGR/338/2018-L3 DATED 24-09-2020 BY NON-
TRADING COMPANY REGISTRAR, KERALA
Exhibit R4(k) THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 4238/2015 DATED
17-08-2015 FORWARDING THE ANNUAL RETURNS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF YOGAM FOR YEAR 2013-
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-94-
2014 PASSED IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL BODY
MEETING ON 9-8-2015
Exhibit R4(l) THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.AAO/1443/2018
DATED 9-01-2018 FORWARDING THE ANNUAL
RETURNS AND ACCOUNT OF YOGAM FOR THE YEAR
2015-16 PASSED IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL BODY
MEETING OF YOGAM ON 7-01-2018
Exhibit R4(m) THE TRUE COPY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 11-
01-2018 RECEIVED FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE
ANNUAL RETURNS FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 FROM THE
2ND RESPONDENT’S OFFICE
Exhibit R4(n) A TRUE COPY OF LIST OF 240 SAKHAS REGISTERED
FROM 1985 ONWARDS IN OUT OF STATE
Exhibit R4(o) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTING ANNUAL
RETURNS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
YEAR 2017-18 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE I.G. OF
REGISTRATION ON 28-12-2020 WITHIN THE
EXTENDED TIME.
Exhibit R4(P) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTING ANNUAL
RETURNS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
YEAR 2018-19 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE I.G. OF
REGISTRATION ON 28-12-2020 WITHIN THE
EXTENDED TIME.
Exhibit R4(Q) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTLNG ANNUAL
RETURNS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
YEAR 2019-20 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE I.G. OF
REGISTRATION ON 28-12-2020 WITHIN THE
EXTENDED TIME.
Exhibit R4(R) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-02-2022
SUBMITTING UNADOPTED ANNUAL RETURNS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF S.N.D.P.YOGAM FOR
FINANCIAL YEAR 2020-21.
Exhibit R4(S) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14-02-2022
ISSUED FOR THE SAME FROM THE I.G. OF
REGISTRATION TO S.N.D.P.YOGAM.
Exhibit R4(T) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN RECEIPT FOR
REMITTING ANNUAL RETURNS FOR THE YEAR 2020-
21 AND 2021-22.
Exhibit R4(U) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1/176185/2023 DATED
01-04-2023 OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR GENERAL SENT
TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE YOGAM
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-95-
REGARDING THIS ADDITIONAL FEE IS ALSO
REMITTED.
Exhibit R4(V) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN RECEIPT FOR
REMITTING FILING FEE OF RS.1,000/- DATED
26-10-2023.
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 23/02/2005
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OS THE LETTER NO.09-
995/S.397/STA(P)11882/2008 ISSUED TO THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 18694/07 DATED
02/03/2009 OF THE NON TRADING COMPANY
REGISTRAR
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J S 1365/2009
DATED 09/04/2009
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.13-20771/2010
DATED 13-08-2010 OF THE REGISTRAR OF NON-
TRADING COMPANIES.
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P.C.2/09-
995/8068/2010 DATED 11/10/2010 OF THE
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA.
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P.C.1/9945/2011
DATED 18/10/2011 OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
COMPANIES, KERALA.
Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.JS/1265/2010
DATED 20/09/2010 OF GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.STA(P)-09-
995/S.397/2078/2009 DATED NIL OF THE
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES.
Annexure A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/1922/2011
DATED 7/10/2011 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
Annexure A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/2725/2012
DATED 18/12/2012 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
S.N.D.P.YOGAM
Annexure A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/2320/2013
DATED 13/12/2013 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-96-
Annexure A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/1918/2014
DATED 27/10/2014 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
Annexure A14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/4239/2015
DATED 17/08/2015 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
Annexure A15 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.12/2016 DATED 27/10/2016 OF MINISTRY OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS.
Annexure A16 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.14/2017 DATED 27/10/2017 OF MINISTRY OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS.
Annexure A17 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.10/2018 DATED 29/10/2018.
Annexure A18 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.13/2019 DATED 29/10/2019.
Annexure A19 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.18/2020 DATED 21/04/2020.
Annexure A20 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.28/2020 DATED 17/08/2020.
Annexure A21 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/08/2020
(FILE NO.IGR/3773/2020-L3 OF REGISTRAR OF
NON-TRADING COMPANY TO SRI.M.K.BABUNESH.
Annexure A22 A TRUE COPY OF THE W.P.(C) NO.19266/2020 WAS
FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA WITHOUT EXHIBITS BY PROF.M.K.SANOO.
Annexure A23 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.989/2019/TAXES DATED 26/12/2019
AUTHORISING DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
(LICENSING).
Annexure A24 A TRUE COPY OF THE W.P.(C) NO.19266/2020 WAS
FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA WITHOUT EXHIBITS BY PROF.M.K.SANOO.
Annexure A25 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2019 OF
THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (LICENSING).
Annexure A26 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN RECEIPT DATED
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-97-
30/09/2022.
Annexure A27 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
GENERAL SECRETARY OF S.N.D.P.YOGAM.
Annexure A28 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IGR/338/2018-L3
DATED 05/11/2020 GRANTING IMMUNITY
CERTIFICATE PASSED BY DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL (LICENSING).
Annexure A29 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED
05-06-2020 FOR RECEIPT OF ANNUAL RETURNS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF S.N.D.P. YOGAM IN
MGT-7 FORM IN THE YEAR 2006-2007 TO 2017-
2018 FROM THE OFFICE OF I.G. OF
REGISTRATION.
Annexure A30 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.424/2021/DMD
DATED 17/05/2021.
Annexure A31 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.72/2022/TAXES
DATED 08/02/2022.
Annexure A32 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/02/2022
SUBMITTED BY S.N.D.P. YOGAM.
Annexure A33 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/01/2022
ISSUED BY S.N.D.P.YOGAM.
Annexure A34 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/01/2022
ISSUED BY S.N.D.P.YOGAM.
Exhibit-R4(w) A TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 23/08/2005
Exhibit-R4(x) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.09-
995/S.397/STA(P) 11882/2008 DATED 21/08/2008
ISSUED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM BY
THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA.
Exhibit-R4(y) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.18694/07 DATED
02-03-2009 OF NON-TRADING COMPANY REGISTRAR.
Exhibit-R4(z) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J.S.1365/2009
DATED 09/04/2009.
Exhibit-R4(aa) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.13-20771/2010
DATED 13-08-2010 OF THE REGISTRAR OF NON-
TRADING COMPANIES.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-98-
Exhibit-R4(ab) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P.C.2/09-
995/8068/2010 DATED 11/10/2010 OF THE
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA.
Exhibit-R4(ac) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P.C.1/9945/2011
DATED 18/10/2011 OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
COMPANIES, KERALA.
Exhibit-R4(ad) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.JS/1265/2010
DATED 20/09/2010 OF GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
Exhibit-R4(ae) A TIUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.STA(P)-09-
995/S.397/2078/2009 DATED NIL OF THE
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES.
Exhibit-R4(af) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/1922/2011
DATED 7/10/2011 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
Exhibit-R4(ag) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/2725/2012
DATED 18/12/2012 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
S.N.D.P.YOGAM
Exhibit-R4(ah) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/2320/2013
DATED 13/12/2013 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
Exhibit-R4(ai) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/1918/2014
DATED 27/10/2014 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
Exhibit-R4(aj) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/4239/2015
DATED 17/08/2015 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
YOGAM.
Exhibit-R4(ak) A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.12/2016 DATED 27/10/2016 OF MINISTRY OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS.
Exhibit-R4(al) A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.14/2017 DATED 27/10/2017 OF MINISTRY OF
COAPORATE AFFAIRS.
Exhibit-R4(am) A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.10/2018 DATED 29/10/2018.
Exhibit-R4(an) A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.13/2019 DATED 29/10/2019.
Exhibit-R4(ao) A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.18/2020 DATED 21/04/2020.
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-99-
Exhibit-R4(ap) A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.28/2020 DATED 17/08/2020.
Exhibit-R4(aq) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/08/2020
(FILE NO.IGR/3773/2020-L3 OF REGISTRAR OF
NON-TRADING COMPANY TO SRI.M.K.BABUNESH.
Exhibit-R4(ar) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/03/2019
SENT BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
S.N.D.P.YOGAM TO THE SECRETARY TO
REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT.
Exhibit-R4(as) A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.989/2019/TAXES DATED 26/12/2019
AUTHORISING DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
(LICENSING).
Exhibit-R4(at) A TRUE COPY OF THE W.P.C. NO.19266/2020 WAS
FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
WITHOUT EXHIBITS BY PROF.M.K.SANOO.
Exhibit-R4(au) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2019 OF
THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (LICENSING).
Exhibit-R4(av) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN RECEIPT DATED
30/09/2022.
Exhibit-R4(aw) A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
GENERAL SECRETARY OF S.N.D.P.YOGAM.
Exhibit-R4(ax) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IGR/338/2018-L3
DATED 05/11/2020 GRANTING IMMUNITY
CERTIFICATE PASSED BY DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL (LICENSING).
Exhibit-R4(ay) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED
05-06-2020 FOR RECEIPT OF ANNUAL RETURNS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF S.N.D.P. YOGAM IN
MGT-7 FORM IN THE YEAR 2006-2007 TO 2017-
2018 FROM THE OFFICE OF I.G. OF
REGISTRATION.
Exhibit-R4(az) A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.424/2021DHD
DATED 17/05/2021.
Exhibit-R4(aaa) A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.72/2022/TAXES
DATED 08/02/2022.
Exhibit-R4(aab) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/02/2022
SUBMITTED BY S.N.D.P. YOGAM.
Exhibit-R4(aac) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/01/2022
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-100-
ISSUED BY S.N.D.P.YOGAN.
Exhibit-R4(aad) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/04/2021
NOTIFYING ANNUAL GENERAL BODY MEETING AND
ELECTION OF S.N.D.P.YOGAM
EXHIBIT R4(aae) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 22-04-2021
WAS PUBLISHED TO CONVENE ANNUAL GENERAL BODY
MEETING AND ELECTION OF OFFICE BEARERS ON
22-05-2021
EXHIBIT R4(aaf) TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN
W.P.(C) NO.10796/2021 DATED 14.05.2021
EXHIBIT R4(aag) TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.424/2021/DMD
DATED 17-05-2021
EXHIBIT R4(aah) TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.877/2021/DMD
DATED 30-12-2021
EXHIBIT R4(aai) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 11-1-2022 TO
CONVENE THE 114TH ANNUAL GENERAL BODY
MEETING AND ELECTION ON 5-2-2022
EXHIBIT R4(aaj) TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 17-01-2022
IN I.A.NO.1/2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.8382 OF 2020
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
EXHIBIT R4(aak) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT W.P.(C) NO.90/2022
DATED 20.05.2022
EXHIBIT R4(aal) TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL FEE OF RS.41,800/-
WAS REMITTED ON 21-06-2022 BY CHELLAN DATED
21-06-2022
EXHIBIT R4(aam) TRUE COPY FORM FOR FILING FINANCIAL
STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WITH THE
REGISTRAR FOR THE YEAR 2019-2020
Exhibit R4 (aan) A TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN RECEIPT FOR REMITTING
ADJUDICATION FEE AND FILING FEE OF ANNUAL
RETURNS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR
2017-18, 2018-19 AND 2019-2020
Exhibit R4(aao) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A4/433/2021-22
DATED 25-11-2021 SENT BY THE GENERAL
SECRETARY OF YOGAM TO 2ND RESPONDENT, I.G.
OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit R4(aap) A TRUE COPY OF THE RULES OF ELECTION OF
OFFICE BEARERS OF S.N.D.P. YOGAM
Exhibit R4(aaq) A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID CIRCULAR
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-101-
NO.A4/552/2024-25 DATED 09-08-2024 ISSUED BY
THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF YOGAM
Exhibit R4(aar) A TRUE COPY OF A MODEL OF LIST OF MEMBERS TO
BE GIVEN FROM KOLLAM SAKHA WITH INSTRUCTION
TO THE SECRETARIES OF SAKHAS SENT BY THE
GENERAL SECRETARY
Exhibit R4(aas) A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST CONTAINING NAMES AND
ADDRESS OF 133 UNIONS
Exhibit R4(aat) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.13-08-2024 SENT BY
THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF YOGAM TO THE
SECRETARY, DUBAI UNION
Exhibit R4(aau) A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULARS ARE SENT BY POST
AND E-MAIL TO ALL UNIONS IN KERALA, OUTSIDE
KERALA AND ALSO TO UNION IN U.A.E.
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.AAO/880/2024/2024-
25 DATED 17.10.2024 ISSUED BY YOGAM TO
SECRETARIES OF UNIONS
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.8/2024 WITH
REF.NO.KNRU/ADMN/138/2024 DATED 12.8.2024
ISSUED TO ALL SAKHA YOGAM SECRETARIES
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.9/2024 DATED
25.10.2024 ISSUED BY CONVENER OF S.N.D.P.
YOGAM KANAYANNUR UNION TO ALL SAKHA
SECRETARIES
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT FOR ISSUING THE
CIRCULARS TO ALL SAKHAS BY SPEED POST BY
KANAYANNUR UNION
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF 4 PAGES OF PREPARED
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF MALANAD S.N.D.P. UNION
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF P.D.F. FORMAT LIST SENT FROM
SAKHA NO.82, MUNDAKKAYAN
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF LIST OF
MEMBERS RECEIVED FROM SAKHA NO.4772
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OFRELEVANT EXTRACT OF LIST OF
MEMBERS RECEIVED FROM SAKHA NO.180 PULI-
VADAKKU, KARMAGAPPALLY S.N.D.P. YOGAM UNION
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE EDITABLE EXCEL SHEET FORMAT
SENT TO LTNIONS ALONG WITH CIRCULAR DATED
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-102-
18/11/2024
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.A4/1007/2024-25
DATED 18-11 -2024
Annexure A11 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER PERSONALLY SENT BY THE
COUNSEL TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF YOGAM
Annexure A12 A TRUE COPY OF NAMES OF 80 UNIONS SENT THE
LIST OF MEMBERS
Exhibit R4(AAV) A TRUE COPY OF MEMBERS OF SAKHA FROM 100
UNIONS SUBMITTED ON 12-11-2024
Exhibit R4(AAW) A LIST OF 86 UNIONS SO SUBMITTED
Exhibit R4(AAX) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
12/12/2024 IN W.A.NO.230/2024
Exhibit R4(AAY) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06-01-2025 IN WA
2023/2024
Exhibit R4(AAZ) A LIST OF THOSE 21 UNIONS IN PDF FORM
Exhibit R4(aaa)(a) TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 11/04/2025
IN CM.APPL..NO.1/2025 IN W.A.NO.478/2025 AND
W.A.NO.482/2025 DEFERRED THE ELECTION OF
S.N.D.P. YOGAM TILL 20-05-2025
Exhibit R4(aaa)(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W A NO.478/2025
DATED 20/5/2025 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit R4(aaa)(c) A TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 19-12-
2025 IN W.A. NOS.2023/2024, 2024/2024,
478/2025 AND 482/2025 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit R4(aaa)(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT DATED 25-08-2023 IN RAVINDRA PRATAP
SHAHI VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS 2025 LIVE
LAW (SC) 834
Exhibit R4(aaa) e A TRUE COPY OF F THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT JUDGMENT DATED 15-05-2023 REPORTED
IN 2025 LIVE LAW (SC) 448
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-103-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 8198 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO.8382/2020 DATED 24.1.2022 OF THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE
COURT IN R.F.A. NO.843/2009 DATED 27.5.2022
OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2024 IN
R.P. NO.1002/2022 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 19.11.2020 UNDER RIGHT
TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT,
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.12.2020
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.2.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO.10338/2021 DATED 11.2.2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.1.2021 IN
W.P.(C) NO.19266/2020 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P.
NO.113/2021 DATED 8.3.2021 OF THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2022 IN
W.A. NO.602/2021 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
Exhibit P11 TRUE ORDER NO.IGR/4487/2020-L3 DATED
30.1.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN
RESPECT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF DIRECTORS QUA
SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL RETURNS
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2022
PASSED BY THE I.G. OF REGISTRATION
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2023
IN W.P.(C) NO.20931/2022 OF THE HON’BLE
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-104-
COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 24.1.2024 SENT
TO I.G. OF REGISTRATION
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE I.G. OF REGISTRATION
(IN WHICH DATE IS WRONGLY SHOWN AS
25.1.2023)
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.2.2024 OF
I.G. OF REGISTRATION
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE IMMUNITY CERTIFICATE (FILE
NO.IGR/338/2018-L3) DATED NIL ISSUED BY
DEPUTY I.G. (LICENSING) AND NON TRADING
COMPANY REGISTRAR, KERALA
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE CFS SCHEME (GENERAL
CIRCULAR NO.12/2020) DATED 30.3.2020 ISSUED
BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF FAQS ON CFSS ISSUED BY THE
MINISTRY
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT) 989/2019/TAXES DATED
26.12.2019
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (MS)
NO.72/2022/TAXES DATED 8.2.2022 ISSUED BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF LIST DATED NIL OF DIRECTORS FOR
2019-2020
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF DIN STATUS OBTAINED FROM THE
SITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS IN
RESPECT OF DIN 03119480
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF DIN STATUS OBTAINED FROM THE
SITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS IN
RESPECT OF DIN 02579202
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RETURNING
OFFICER REJECTING THE NOMINATION FOR
ELECTION DATED 7.5.2021
Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE YOGAM COUNCIL
DATED 12.5.2021
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.3.2022
ISSUED BY THE I.G. OF REGISTRATION TO
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-105-
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (TAXES)
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DIRECTORS FOR 2014-
15 DATED NIL WITH THEIR DATE OF RETIREMENT
SUBMITTED BY SNDP YOGAM GENERAL SECRETARY
Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.3.2020 BY
GENERAL SECRETARY OF SNDP YOGAM
Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 4TH RESPONDENT
NO.A4/923/2023-24 DATED 9.11.2023
Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A4/946/2023-24
DATED 15.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DENYING ADMISSION TO SNDP YOGAM
Exhibit P33 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST ISSUED BY THE UNION
FOR ADMISSION AS MEMBERS OF SNDP YOGAM
Exhibit P34 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.3.2022
FILED BY SPL. G.P. (VIGILANCE) IN W.P.(C)
NO.14599/2020 BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF MUNSIFF
COURT, KOLLAM IN I.A. NO.1/2021 IN O.S
298/2021
EXHIBIT R4(B) THE ORDER IS SET ASIDE BY THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT OF NEW DELHI IN WP(C) NOS 22699,
22700 AND 22701 OF 2005 AND HAS DIRECTED THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE
AFRESH, A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED
09/02/2009
EXHIBIT R4(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER
NO.J3/50/2022ITAX DT. 13/04/2022 ISSUED BY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IS HEREWITH
EXHIBIT R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.JS/365/2009 DATED
10-04-2009 FORWARDING ANNUAL REPORT, INCOME
AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT, ETC. FOR YEAR
2007- 2008 BY YOGAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS
HEREWITH
EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.J.S.11006/2010 DATED
20- 09-2010 FORWARDING ANNUAL REPORT AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-106-
BY YOGAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS HEREWITH
EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO,AAO/2320/2013 DATED
13-12-2013 FORWARDING THE ANNUAL RETURNS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY YOGAM IS PRODUCED
HEREWITH
EXHIBIT R4(G) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17-08-2015
FORWARDING ANNUAL REPORT AND FINANCIAL
STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 BY YOGAM TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS HEREWITH
EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.AAO/1443/2018 DATED
9-01-2018 FOR T:HE YEAR 2015-16 BY YOGAM TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS HEREWITH
EXHIBIT R4(I) A TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED
11-1-2018 FOR RECEIPT OF EXT.R4(H) IN THE
S.N.D.P. YOGAM KOLLAM OFFICE OF 2ND
RESPONDENT IS HEREWITH PRODUCED
EXHIBIT R4(J) THE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER PRODUCED AS
EXHIBIT R3(C) IN W.P.(C)NO.6322/2022 IS
PRODUCED HEREWIT
EXHIBIT R4(K) CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE ANNUAL
RETURNS AS EVIDENCED FROM ORDER
NO.IGR/338/2018-L3 DATED 24-09-2020 BY NON-
TRADING COMPANY REGISTRAR, KERALA, A T:RUE
COPY OF WHICH IS HEREWITH PRODUCE
EXHIBIT R4(L) A TRUE COPY OF LIST OF NAMES OF DIRECTORS
ALLOTTED DIN AND SUBMITTED TO YOGAM IS
HEREWITH
EXHIBIT R4(M) A TRUE COPY OF G.O DATED 13-04-2022 IS
HEREWITH PRODUCED
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P35 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING
NO.1709/2008 DATED 10.6.2008 OF S.R.O.,
QUILANDY WHEREBY PROPERTY OF SNDP YOGAM WAS
SOLD TO BASHEER
EXHIBIT-P36 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, (CKSBCDC) BEARING
NO.7132/E4/2017/K.S.B.C.D.C. DATED 12.1.2018
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-107-
Exhibit P37 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER
AFFIDAVIT IN COMPANY APPEAL NO.5/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 7.12.2018 FILED BY SRI. VELLAPPALLY
NATESAN, GENERAL SECRETARY OF SNDP YOGAM
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-R4(X) THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ITAX-J) AS PER LETTER
NO.J3/182/2020-TAX DEPT. DATED 29-09-2020
INFORMED THE 2ND RESPONDENT CFSS 2020 SCHEME
IS APPLICABLE TO NON-TRADING COMPANIES ALSO
IS PRODUCED
EXHIBIT-R4(Y) A TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN REPORT RECEIVED BY
YOGAM FOR REMITTING RS.6,600/-TOWARDS FILING
FEE FOR THE YEARS 2006- 07 TO 2016-17 IS
PRODUCED
EXHIBIT-R4(Z) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-09-2020
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit R4 (aa) A TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 19-12-
2025 IN W.A. NOS.2023/2024, 2024/2024,
478/2025 AND 482/2025
Exhibit R4(ab) A TRUE COPY OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT DATED 25-08-2025 IN RAVINDRA PRATAP
SHAHI VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS 2025 LIVE
LAW (SC) 834,
Exhibit R4(ac) A TRUE COPY OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT DATED 15-05-2023 IN UMESH RAI @
GORA RAI VS STATE OF UP REPORTED IN 2023
LIVE LAW (SC) 448
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-108-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 10526 OF 2024
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE
NO.720982 DATED 18.06.2000 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT YOGAM
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION OF SNDP YOGAM DATED 15/05/1903
UNDER THE ERSTWHILE TRAVANCORE REGULATION NO.1
OF 1063
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT FIRST PAGE OF
THE INFORMATION GATHERED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT AS PER LETTER DATED 10/02/2020
ISSUED TO ARUN R., ARUNIMA, MAYYANAD FROM THE
STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & CASHIER OF
THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AS PER
LETTER NO. IGR/3522/2021-RTI REGN DATED
05/08/2021 ISSUED TO ADV. LEENA I.S.,
KUMARANASAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, ALAPPUZHA, FROM
THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & CASHIER
OF THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BY ADV.LEENA I.S.
TO THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPANIES FRESH START
SCHEME, 2020 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS VIDE GENERAL CIRCULAR NO.
12/2020 DATED 30/03/2020
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.34/2014 DATED 12/08/2014 NOTIFYING COMPANY
LAW SETTLEMENT SCHEME, 2014, ISSUED BY THE
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.40/2014 DATED 15/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.41/2014 DATED 15/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.44/2014 DATED 14/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-109-
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRAR (LICENSING) &
REGISTRAR OF NON-TRADING COMPANIES DATED NIL
Exhibit P10 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO: 72/022/TAXES
DATED 8-2-2022 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/01/2021
IN W.P.C.NO.19266/2020 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/03/2021
IN R.P.NO.113/2021 IN W.P.C.NO.19266/2020 OF
THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
10/01/2022 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 602/2021 AND
WRIT APPEAL NO.688/2021 OF THE DIVISION BENCH
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. IGR/4487/2020-L3
DATED 30.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/11/2023
IN W.P.C.NOS.6322/2022, 20641/2022 AND
20931/2022 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.16/2017 DATED 29/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS INTRODUCING
CONDONATION OF DELAY SCHEME 2018
Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/01/2024
IN W.P.C.NO. 22201 OF 2022 OF THIS HON’BLE
COURT
Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED
30/01/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/01/2022
IN WPC NO.8382/2020 AND WPC NO.1385/2021 OF
THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/05/2022
IN R.F.A.843/2009 AND C.O.NO.57/2010 OF THE
DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IGR/4487/2020/L3
DATED 17/02/2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS (FAQS) PUBLISHED BY THE MINISTRY OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS IN ITS WEBSITE IN RESPECT OF
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-110-
EXHIBIT P4 COMPANIES FRESH START SCHEME, 2020
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02-03-2009
FROM 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT
ACCEPTING THAT YOGAM HAS SUBMITTED ANNUAL
RETURNS FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007.
Exhibit R5(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.JS/1365/2009
DATED 10-04- 2009 FORWARDING THE ANNUAL
RETURNS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE YEARS
2007-2008.
Exhibit R5(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.JS/1265/2010
DATED 20-09-2010 FORWARDING THE ANNUAL RETURNS
AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE YEARS 2008-
2009.
Exhibit R5(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
ACCOUNTS ANNUAL RETURNS ETC. FOR THE YEAR
2009-2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF
COMPANIES IS RETURNED TO THE YOGUM OFFICE BY
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANYS AS PER LETTER
DATED 18/10/2021 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit R5(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/2320/2013
DATED 13TH DECEMBER 2013 FORWARDING THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF YOGAM FOR THE YEAR
2012-13 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE ANNUAL MEETING.
Exhibit R5(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAO/1918/2014
DATED 27-10-2014 FORWARDING THE ANNUAL RETURNS
AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF YOGAM FOR THE YEAR
2013-14 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R5(g) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.AA/1443/2018 DATED
09-01-2018 FORWARDING ANNUAL RETURNS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF YOGAM FOR THE YEAR
2015-16 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R5(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR RECEIPT
OF EXT.R5(G) IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ON 11-01-2018.
Exhibit R5(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
09/02/2009 IN W.P.(C) NOS.22699/2005,
22700/2005 AND 22701/2005.
Exhibit R5(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IGR/338/2018-L3
DATED 24- 09-2020 BY NON-TRADING COMPANY
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-111-
REGISTRAR, KERALA
Exhibit R5(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-12-2020
SENT BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R5(l) A TRUE COPY OF THE UNADOPTED ANNUAL RETURNS
AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2018-19
SUBMITTED BY YOGAM BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R5(m) A TRUE COPY OF THE UNADOPTED ANNUAL RETURNS
AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2019-20
SUBMITTED BY YOGAM BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R5(n) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/03/2019
SENT BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF
REGISTRATION TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit R5(o) A TRUE COPY OF THE DIN ALLOTTED TO RESPONDENT
NO.5
Exhibit R5(p) A TRUE COPY OF THE DIN ALLOTTED TO RESPONDENT
NO.6
Exhibit R5(q) A TRUE COPY OF THE DIN ALLOTTED TO RESPONDENT
NO.7
Exhibit R5(r) A TRUE COPY OF THE DIN ALLOTTED TO RESPONDENT
NO.8
Exhibit R5(s) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/11/2021 IN I
A NO 1/2021 IN O S NO 298/2021 OF THE MUNSIFFS
COURT, KOLLAM.
Exhibit R5(t) A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF NAMES OF 70
DIRECTORS OUT OF 93 PARTY DIRECTORS WITH THEIR
DIN WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE I.G. OF
REGISTRATION BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE YOGAM.
Exhibit R5(u) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
NO.J3/50/2022/ TAXES DATED 13/04/2022.
Exhibit R5(v) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FILE
NO.IGR/3773/2020 DATED 25-08-2020 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R5(w) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT
OF DIN OF RENJITH, DIRECTOR, THRISSUR.
Exhibit R5(x) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
DATED 14TH MAY 2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.10796/2021.
Exhibit R5(y) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.13.20771/2010
DATED 13-08-2010 FROM 2ND RESPONDENT TO 5TH
W.P.(C)Nos. 8095/2024,
8198/2024 & 10526/2024
2026:KER:21874
-112-
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R5(z) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT)
NO.424/2021/DMD DATED 17-05-2021.
Exhibit R5(aa) A TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 19-12-
2025 IN W.A. NOS.2023/2024, 2024/2024,
478/2025 AND 482/2025
Exhibit R5(aa)(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COUT
JUDGMENT DATED 25-08-2025 IN RAVINDRA PRATAP
SHAHI VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS 2025 LIVE LAW
(SC) 834
Exhibit R5(aa)(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COUT
JUDGMENT DATED 15-05-2023 IN UMESH RAI
@GORARAI VS.STATE OF U.P. REPORTED IN 2023
LIVE LAW (SC) 448
