Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 111 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRefusal of the Company Law Board to entertain a counter reply - The appellant who is only a co-respondent, to the reply filed by another respondent - Principles of natural justice - Held that:- The co-respondent before the Company Law Board is not seeking any relief as against the appellant herein. Though the co-respondent is supporting the case of the main company petitioner, the main company petition cannot be decided by the Company Law Board on the strength of the averments made by the co-respondent in support of the main petitioner's case. In other words, the Company Law Board cannot today draw any adverse inference against the appellant, on the basis of the averments made by the co-respondent against the appellant. Once it is clear that the appellant, as a respondent, cannot file a counter reply to the reply of one of the respondents, I do not think that the appellant can be made to suffer by the Court drawing any adverse inference against the appellant and holding him guilty. This safeguard is available to him even under common law. Therefore, holding that the refusal of the Company Law Board to entertain a counter reply from the appellant who is only a co-respondent, to the reply filed by another respondent, is perfectly justified in terms of Regulation 23, this appeal is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the Company Law Board cannot hold the allegations made against the appellant by the co-respondent to have gone uncontroverted. It should be pointed out that the fundamental principle of natural justice is that a man shall not be condemned unheard. Once I have ensured that the allegations made against the appellant cannot be held against him without permitting him to file a counter reply, the question of condemning the appellant unheard may not arise. Appeal dismissed.
|