Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 550 - HC - Companies LawAggrieved by order of Company Law Board (CLB) - Violation of principles of natural justice - Invocation of powers of the CLB under section 247(1A) of the Companies Act - Held that:- Section 247(1A) would not empower the CLB to direct investigation into the affairs of a company which is merely party to the proceedings but is not the company in respect of which there is any allegation of oppression and mismanagement.The use of the expression “the company” implies further that it refers to the company in respect of which the proceedings are pending before the CLB. The use of the expression “in the course of any proceeding before it” cannot be read liberally so as to empower the CLB to direct investigation into the affairs of any company connected or unconnected with the proceedings or which is merely a party to the proceedings. The same principles have laid down in the case of Uniworth Textiles limited [2013 (3) TMI 323 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. In the case at hand, the CLB has passed the order in the nature of an interim order in an application seeking impleadment. There is clearly no formation of opinion by the CLB that the „true persons‟ who are or have been financially interested in the success or failure of the company, are different from the persons who appear to be the members of the company or the „true persons‟ who are or have been able to control or materially influence the policy of the company, are different from the persons who appear to be in the control of the company and a probe into the company's affairs is desirable in the interest of the company itself, and/or in public interest and that such an investigation was required into the affairs of WIPL. There was admittedly no request or prayer made by the respondent for the same. Parties have not even been put to notice that such an order was contemplated. Parties have admittedly not been heard on this issue. There is clearly a violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the proceedings in which directions have been issued in suo moto exercise of powers under section 247(1A), in respect of WIPL, are not proceedings in respect of WIPL. WIPL is not even a party to the said proceedings. Though an application seeking impleadment of WIPL is pending but it is yet to be decided by the CLB. Even if the said application were to be allowed and WIPL was impleaded as a party, it would make no difference as the proceedings do not relate to the affairs of the company WIPL. Merely because WIPL is impleaded as a party to the proceedings would not empower CLB to direct an investigation into its affairs as permitting so would render the very words “in the course of the proceedings before it” otiose. The proceedings pending before the CLB are not proceedings in respect of WIPL. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 09.05.2014 is set aside. The CLB is directed to decide the pending applications in accordance with law and the principles as elucidated here in above. - Decided in favour of appellants.
|