Vellappally Natesan files appeal in Kerala HC against removal from SNDP general secretary post

Former General Secretary of SNDP Yogam, Vellappally Natesan, has moved an appeal before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, challenging the recent single-judge order directing his removal from the SNDP post [VK Natesan & anr v Dr K Reghu Anchayil & ors].

The appeal contends that the single judge committed a serious jurisdictional error by deciding issues relating to the disqualification of directors and the internal affairs of a company, which fell within the domain of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Such disputes concerning the management of a company cannot be heard by a High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the appeal says.

"Any intrusion into the jurisdiction of statutory tribunals, specifically established for deciding such questions of fact, would violate judicial discipline and cause chaos to the administration of justice. The impugned order is therefore bad in law on this ground also," the appeal added.

The appeal further contends that the single-judge ruling violated a binding Division Bench judgment, which had earlier held the SNDP Yogam to be a private company that cannot be subject to a challenge under writ jurisdiction.

The March 12 single judge Bench ruling under challenge was passed after noting that the SNDP Yogam had failed to file its financial statements for three consecutive years.

As such, its directors - including its general secretary Nateshan - stood disqualified from directorship under Section 164 (2) of the Companies Act, the single judge held.

The single judge had also directed the State government to appoint new directors to manage the affairs of the SNDP Yogam.

This ruling has now been challenged by Natesan and his son Thushar Nateshan (appellants). Notably, Thushar Nateshan had been serving as the organisation's vice-president until he too was disqualified from directorship by the March 12 judgment.

Among other contentions, the appellants have contended that the single judge's conclusion regarding the non-filing of returns is factually incorrect. According to them, annual returns and financial statements had in fact been regularly submitted, but were not formally taken on record due to administrative complications. The administrative complications cited included the non-availability of original records, which remained in sealed custody pursuant to certain court proceedings for several years.

The appeal also disputes a finding regarding Director Identification Number (DIN), stating that a valid DIN issued under the Companies Act were already produced before the Court.

The appeal adds that the single judge himself recorded that no State rules existed for the issuance of DINs. Yet the single judge proceeded to hold the appellants to be disqualified for not possessing a DIN, the appeal says.

"The Appellants cannot be disqualified for failing to comply with a requirement for which no machinery exists. If the State Government has not framed the rules or established a mechanism for allotment of DIN, it is a case of impossibility of performance," the appeal added.

The appeal was moved through advocates Chandapillai Abraham PG, Isaac Thomas, Paul P Abraham and John Vithayathil.