WP/16839/2026 of Colachel Vicariate Nidhi Limited Vs UNION OF INDIA
WP No. 16839 of 2026
__________
Page1 of 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
WP No. 16839 of 2026, WP NO. 16849 OF 2026
AND
WMP NO. 18092 OF 2026 & WMP NO. 18093 OF 2026
WP No. 16839 of 2026
M/s.Colachel Vicariate Nidhi Limited
Rep. by its Director,
Joseph Soosai Rethinam,
Colachel Vicariate Office, Colachel,
Kanyakumari 629 521
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union of India
Rep. by the Assistant Director,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
5th Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi 110 001
2. The Regional Director
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Southern Region,
5th Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Registrar of Companies
Tamil Nadu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands,
2nd floor, C wing, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
..Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 16839 of 2026
__________
Page2 of 8
WP No. 16849 of 2026
M/s. Xavier Nidhi Limited
Rep. by its Director,
Siluvai Pillai Johnson,
Xavier Building, 1st Floor, Assisi Campus,
Veppamoodu Junction, Nagercoil 629001.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union of India
Rep. by the Assistant Director,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
5th Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Regional Director
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Southern Region,
5th Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Registrar of Companies
Tamil Nadu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands,
2nd Floor, C Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in W.P.16839 of 2026 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
for the records on the file of the 1 st respondent relating the impugned order
dated 15.07.2024 thereby rejecting application in e-Form NDH- 4 filed by the
petitioner and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents t o
accept the e-Form NDH-4 filed by the petitioner vide SRN T07114531 date d
03.03.2021 and to issue the notification as regards the petitioner in the O fficial
Gazette as a Nidhi in terms of Rule 3A of the Nidhi Rules, 2014 a s amended by
Nidhi (Amendment ) Rules, 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 16839 of 2026
__________
Page3 of 8
WP No. 16849 of 2026
Prayer in W.P.16849 of 2026 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
for the records on the file of the 1 st respondent relating to the impugned order
dated 10.07.2024 thereby rejecting application in e-Form NDH- 4 filed by the
petitioner and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents t o
accept the e-Form NDH- 4 filed by the petitioner vide SRN T07127467 dat ed
03.03.2021 and to issue the notification as regards the petitioner in the O fficial
Gazette as a Nidhi in terms of Rule 3A of the Nidhi Rules, 2014 a s amended by
Nidhi (Amendment ) Rules, 2019.
WP No. 16839 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Saikrishnan
in both writ petitions
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.M.Shankar
Central Government Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the
orders passed by the 1 st respondent, rejecting the application in e-Form NDH-4
filed by the petitioners and to direct the respondents to accept the Form NDH-4
filed by the petitioners.
2.When these writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel for the petitioners and the learned Central Government Standing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 16839 of 2026
__________
Page4 of 8
Counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the issue involved in
the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the common order of the
Division Bench of this Court, dated 20.03.2025, passed in W.P.Nos.23402 &
23408 of 2024, etc., batch , whereby, the petitioners therein were granted an
opportunity to file their reply. Hence, they would submit that the above said
order will hold good for the present writ petitions also and prayed to dispose of
the writ petitions. The order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench rea ds as
follows:
“The writ petitions have been instituted to assail the order
passed by the second respondent dated 23.06.2023 rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner in Form NDH-4 and to declare
the amendment made substituting Section 406 of The Companies
Act 2013 with new Section 406 as per The Companies
(Amendment) Act 2017 (Act 1 of 2018) published vide gazette
dated 03.01.2018 and notified with effect from 15.08.2019
requiring the Nidhi Companies which are already incorporated
as Nidhi Companies to once again get a declaration as Nidhi by
the Central Government is illegal, excessive, arbitrary and
unconstitutional and strike down the same; to declare the
amendment made to Nidhi Rules 2014 by Nidhi (Amendment)
Rules 2019 vide notification dated 01.07.2019 with effect from
15.08.2019 by inserting Rule 3A and Rule 23A are illegal,
excessive, arbitrary and unconstitutional and strike down the
same; to declare the amendment made to Nidhi Rules 2014 by
Nidhi (Amendment) Rules 2022 vide notification dated
19.04.2022 with effect from 19.04.2022 by inserting provisos to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 16839 of 2026
__________
Page5 of 8
Rule 3A and Rule 23A are illegal, excessive, arbitrary and
unconstitutional and strike down the same.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner restricted his prayer by submitting that the second
respondent passed orders on the application beyond the time
limit of 45 days fixed to dispose of the application. In the pres ent
case, the application in Form NDH-4 was filed by the petitione r
on 15.04.2020, but the same was rejected by the second
respondent in proceeding dated 23.06.2023.
3.A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that
certain observations against the petitioner are made with
reference to the particulars available in the application and
consequently the rejection order was passed. The learned counsel
for petitioner would submit that the petitioner will be satisfied if
the subsequent reply/explanation given by the petitioner is taken
into consideration and a fresh order is passed, by affording
opportunity to the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with
law.
4.The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents would submit that reasons are stated in the order
impugned. The application was rejected on merits. The larger
relief sought for in one of the writ petitions is to declare the
provisions of law as null and void.
5.In view of the fact that the petitioner has restricted the
relief as such sought for in the writ petitions, this Court is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 16839 of 2026
__________
Page6 of 8
inclined to pass the following order:-
(i) The petitioner states that it has submitted reply to the
impugned order dated 23.06.2023 on 14.07.2023. Apart from the
reply dated 14.07.2023, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a
fresh reply regarding the compliance of the defects stated in the
impugned order dated 23.06.2023, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) On receipt of any such reply/explanation from the
petitioner, the second respondent shall provide an opportunity to
the writ petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate final orders on
merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
However, the legal issue regarding the validity of the provisions
of law is left open.”
3.Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents and in view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench, this Court passes the following order:
i) The petitioners state that they had submitted their respecti ve replies to
the impugned orders on 21.03.2025 and 17.08.2024. Apart from the said replies,
the petitioners are at liberty to submit a fresh reply regardi ng the compliance of
the defects stated in the said impugned orders, within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii) On receipt of any such replies/explanations from the petitioners, the 2nd
respondent shall provide an opportunity to the writ petitioners and there after,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 16839 of 2026
__________
Page7 of 8
pass appropriate final orders on merits and in accordance with l aw, within a
period of four weeks from the date of filing of replies by the respective
petitioners. However, the legal issue regarding the validity of the pr ovisions of
law is left open.
4.With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MKN
To
1. The Assistant Director,
Union of India
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
5th Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi 110 001
2. The Regional Director
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Southern Region,
5th Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Registrar of Companies
Tamil Nadu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands,
2nd floor, C wing, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 16839 of 2026
__________
Page8 of 8
M.DHANDAPANI J.
MKN
WP No. 16839 of 2026 &
WP NO. 16849 OF 2026
28-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis