TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of obtaining an order of investigation. But it would be evident from, in particular, Section 247 of the Act that the ultimate purpose of the exercise is to obtain an order of investigation. It cannot be said that an adjudication of the company’s alleged liability to the petitioners before the CLB or the company’ s alleged liability to another creditor could have been undertaken by the CLB in course of the proceedings before it. If such is the case, the CLB did not have any authority to pass the order impugned, particularly to restrain the company from making any payment to a creditor. The constitutional scheme of things requires Courts or quasi judicial authorities to operate within the bounds of their authority. Merely b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrajka, Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Ms. A. Banerjee, for the petitioners Mr. S. K. Kapoor, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naren Sharma, Mr. D. N. Misra, Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Abhishkh Haldar, Ms. Arunima Lala,for the respondents The Court : The only ground on which the unreasoned order of the Company Law Board is sought to be sustaine d is of Regulation 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991. The argument has to be rejected out of hand since a tribunal, as opposed to the representative of the sovereign as a Court, cannot confer jurisdiction on itself that the statute that brings the tribunal into existence has not afforded it. The appeal is directed against a one-page order of the principal bench of the CLB passed on August 10, 2015 on p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts say that apart from the order being unsupported by any reasons, it is evident on a plain reading of the provisions quoted in the petition before the CLB, that the CLB did not have had the au thority to pass either the direction for furnishing the old reports of the company or the substantive order of injunction restraining the company from making payment to another creditor of the company. The petitioners have relied on a judgment reported at (2007) 4 CHN 712, which was followed in an unreported order of October 24, 2008 passed in T No.108 of 2008 (Birla Corporation Limited vs. Rameshwara Jute Mill Company Limited). A Division Bench judgement reported at (1998) 4 Comp.LJ 299 and a Supreme Court judgment reported at (1994) 4 SCC 225 have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose in control of the company and to the prejudice of its genu ine creditors, particularly the petitioners before the CLB in whose favour of the assets of the company remained charged. Such factual position was necessary to be pleaded and demonstrated for the purpose of obtaining an order of investigation. But it would be evident from, in particular, Section 247 of the Act that the ultimate purpose of the exercise is to obtain an order of investigation. It cannot be said that an adjudicatio n of the company s alleged liability to the petitioners before the CLB or the company s alleged liability to another creditor could have been undertaken by the CLB in course of the proceedings before it. If such is the case, the CLB did not have any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
