Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 283 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHWhether the interim order granted by the CLB is in accordance with law or not – Appeal filed under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 - Challenge was made to an interlocutory order passed by the CLB - Held that:- Order has been passed without disclosing any reasons and it does not show application of mind. It is now well-settled that the conferment of quasi-judicial power implies that the person concerned must follow the rules of natural justice and must give reasons for making the order which he is empowered to make. Purely administrative bodies are also bound to act justly and fairly which may bring in the requirement of natural justice as also the duty to give reasons. Even a non-statutory private body which is not a State under article 12 of the Constitution, but which exercises public functions is bound to follow the principles of "fairness" and "good faith" and to act reasonably and its orders are amenable to judicial review. Section 4(1)(d) of the recently enacted statute, the Right to Information Act, 2005, also requires every public authority of India to "provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons". Reading of the impugned order, makes it is clear that no reason has been given by the authority for staying the proceedings of the appellant-company - The order, therefore, suffers from inherent defect of not following the rules of natural justice – For these reasons, set aside the impugned order – Remanded the matter to the Company Law Board with a direction to decide the interlocutory application afresh, in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice – In favour of appellant
|