TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LAL MEHTA AND CHANDRAKANT KANU KARKARE [ 2018 (9) TMI 678 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] while discussing wide powers of the Tribunal under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, conjointly read with Section 246 and Sections 337 to 341, this Appellate Tribunal held that During the process of investigation and pendency of an application under Section 241(2) read with Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 and in view of powers conferred under Section 221, the Tribunal is not only empowered to pass appropriate interim order against the Company but also against any person or individual, including the order to desist. The Tribunal is empowered to pass order under Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 in a petition under Section 241(2) if it forms opinion that the affairs of the company have been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the public interest. Once such opinion is formed by the Tribunal, it may pass any order as it deem fit and proper - The various acts prejudicial to public interest have been highlighted which has cascading impact on various sectors of economy - The Department of Economic Affairs which is responsible for the financial sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sells LLP and its partners challenging the maintainability of the Company Petition. By impugned order dated 9th August, 2019, the Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous Application. 4. In another Company Petition No. 02 of 2014, the Union of India sought to debar the then present Directors (Appellants herein) from managing the affairs of the Company (M/s. Megacity Bangalore Developers and Builders Limited ) and further to permit to nominate five Directors to manage the affairs of the Company while several Civil and Criminal cases were pending against the Company and its Directors. In the said Petition, the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 14th March, 2019 disposed of the said Company Petition by removing and debarring the Directors from managing the affairs of the Company and allowing the prayer of Union of India to appoint Directors. 5. In these appeals as similar question of law is involved, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 6. For the said reasons, we have noticed only the main ground taken and the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel in Deloitte Haskins Sells LLP v. Union of India─ Company Appeal (AT) No. 190 of 2019 . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as the Appellant during the F.Y. 2017-2018 was not related to IL FS or its management and affairs and was only a Partner of Deloitte Haskins Sells LLP , therefore, neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the said Company Petition. Further, it was submitted that no final reliefs were claimed in the Company Petition against the Appellant and, therefore, there was no question of any interim protective orders being granted against the Appellant. Company Appeal (AT) No. 195 of 2019 14. The 1st Appellant- Mr. Shrenik Baid is a partner and the remaining Appellants in this appeal are employees of Deloitte Haskins Sells LLP which was acting as an Auditor of IL FS Financial Services Limited ., a 100% subsidiary of Infrastructure Leasing Financial Services ( IL FS ), until F.Y. 2017-2018 and also acted as a Joint Auditor of IL FS Financial Services Limited with BSR Associates LLP . 15. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellants have been wrongly impleaded as a party Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as it was neither a member of IL FS or IFIN , nor in any manner involved in the carrying on of business of IL FS or IFIN and, therefore, neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the said Company Petition. It was further submitted that the Appellant was never in-charge of nor responsible for the management and operations of IFIN and had issued only one Joint Audit Report for F.Y. 2017-18, along with Deloitte Haskins Sells LLP , who had been Auditors of IFIN for 10 years. Furthermore, it was submitted that there was no material against the Appellant for any fraudulent activity. Company Appeal (AT) No. 205 of 2019 20. The Appellant- Mr. Milind Patel was an Employee Director of IL FS Financial Services Limited ( IFIN ) till 31st March, 2018, though he tendered his resignation on 5th February, 2018. 21. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as no final reliefs were claimed in the Company Petition against the Appellant nor any allegations were made and, therefore, it was neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the said Company Petition. 26. It was further submitted that the Appellant could have been joined as a party Respondent only after guilt of the Appellant had been proved beyond doubt on the basis of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office Second Interim Report and the Criminal Complaint filed before Special Court. Company Appeal (AT) No. 211 of 2019 27. The Appellant Manu Kochhar was an employee of IL FS from 23rd April, 1990 and retired on 31st August, 2018. The Appellant was appointed as Nominee Director of IL FS Financial Services Limited ( IFIN ) in the year 2004 and resigned in March, 2015. 28. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as no final relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not involved in IFIN s dayto-day affairs and management and had no executive powers. 35. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as the Appellant during the F.Y. 2017-2018 was not related to IL FS or its management and affairs, therefore, not a proper party for adjudication of the Company Petition filed for alleged oppression and mismanagement of IL FS . Further, it was submitted that no final reliefs were claimed in the Company Petition against the Appellant and, therefore, there was no question of any interim protective orders being granted against the Appellant. Company Appeal (AT) No. 215 of 2019 36. The Appellant- Mr. Uday Ved served as an Independent Director of IFIN between 31st March, 2015 and 20th September, 2018. 37. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as the Appellant was an Independent Director of IFIN and wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tte Haskins Sells LLP which was acting as an Auditor of IL FS Financial Services Limited ., a 100% subsidiary of Infrastructure Leasing Financial Services ( IL FS ), until F.Y. 2017-2018 and also acted as a Joint Auditor of IL FS Financial Services Limited with BSR Associates LLP . 45. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 9th August, 2019, the Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the Appellant being an erstwhile auditor and ceasing to act as an Auditor of IFIN from F.Y. 2017-18 could not be covered within the ambit of Section 140 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the functioning of the auditor at the time when the petition under Section 140(5) is initiated being a jurisdictional fact in the absence of powers under the said Section cannot be resorted to at all. 46. It was submitted that Section 140(5) only applies to existing auditors and the Tribunal could not have by way of a deeming fiction interpreted the said Section to include erstwhile Auditors. Also, such a construction would be violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. Company Appeal (AT) No. 224 of 2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 230 of 2019 53. The Appellant- Mr. C. Sivasankaran was Ex-Chairman of Siva Industries and Holdings Limited ( SIHL ) until 19th March, 2017. It was submitted that SIHL and its subsidiaries always had individual Directors, Shareholders, Board Members and Independent Auditors and he had no legal capacity in any of the companies that obtained loans from IL FS subsequent to his leaving from India and SIHL Group. 54. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as vague allegations were alleged on him by 2nd SFIO Report. Company Appeal (AT) No. 285 of 2019 55. The Appellant- Mrs. Renu Challu was appointed as an Independent Director of IFIN on 27th September, 2017 and resigned on 17th July, 2018. 56. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as the Appellant was an Independent Director of IFIN and was not at all concerned with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der no further final prayers or reliefs had been added. In fact, even in the said Miscellaneous Application, there is no mention of any final reliefs being sought against the Appellant. It is submitted that it is only on the touchstone of reliefs sought that it can be determined whether a person is a necessary or proper party to a proceeding. Jurisdiction under Sections 241-242 vis- -vis past auditors 60. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass orders against an auditor under Section 241 or Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The provision contained in Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 pertain to oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of the company. An auditor is not involved in the management of the affairs of a company and, therefore, cannot be covered within the ambit of Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. A reference to Section 242 (a) to (l) of the Companies Act, 2013 will demonstrate that none of the actions contemplated therein can be ordered against past statutory auditors of a company. Insofar as the general powers under Section 242(m) of the Companies Act, 2013 are concerned, it is submitted that the same must be read e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Interim Reports) are specifically excluded and as such the 1st and 2nd Interim Reports would not be admissible in any legal proceeding as evidence in relation to any matter contained in the report. Section 339 of the Act: 64. It has been contended that the provisions of Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 are applicable in the facts of the present case in view of Section 246 of the Companies Act, 2013 and thus the Appellant is a necessary and/or a proper party. The said contention is baseless in view of the following: a. Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot apply to auditors at all and applies only to a director, manager or officer of the company or persons who are knowingly party to the carrying on of business of the company. It is submitted that an auditor, by definition, is not party to the carrying on of the business of a company. Nor is it anybody s case that the auditor was carrying on the business of the company; b. In any event, there is no pleading in the said Company Petition or the said Miscellaneous Application No.2071 of 2019 that there have been any unlawful gains by the Appellant that would attract the provisions of Section 339 of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither any averments not any reliefs in the impleadment application, which correspond to Section 245 or seek to incorporate the provisions of Section 245 into the present impleadment application; and c. It is submitted that the very fact that Section 245 specifically makes reference to auditors makes it all the more evident that auditors are excluded from the ambit of proceedings under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, which make no reference to auditors or any relief being sought against them. Special and specific remedies available against auditors: 68. The role of an auditor, whether it be in the nature of negligence or misconduct or fraud, can be investigated by, as Regulator, the National Financial Reporting Authority established under Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013 or by the Institute of Chartered Accountants established under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 or under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 by a Special Court established under Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013. In view of the specific and special alternate remedies available against auditors, there is no question of invoking the jurisdiction under Sections 241 and 242 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Tribunal in an appeal from the order dated 12th October, 2018 passed by the Tribunal, while recognising the exigent and extraordinary circumstances that had arisen due to the financial irregularities within the IL FS group that became apparent, granted an order protecting the whole IL FS Group against any potential coercive action by creditors and other parties, in larger public interest on 15th October, 2018. 70.6. On 31st November, 2018, in pursuance to the Office Order, the SFIO submitted its first report in respect of the involvement of the Committee of Directors of IL FS and an Employee Welfare Trust associated with IL FS. 70.7. On the basis of the 1st SFIO Report and a prima-facie opinion of the Institute of Chartered Accountants dated 4th December, 2018 (which categorically holds the auditors of IL FS, IL FS Financial Services Limited ( IFIN ) and IL FS Transportation Networks India Limited ( ITNL ) guilty of professional misconduct), the Ministry of Corporate Affairs filed an application under Section 130 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the Tribunal, Mumbai praying, inter-alia, that the books of accounts of IL FS, IFIN and ITNL for the past five years be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Government and placed in a tabular form: S.NO Parties Specific Allegations in the SFIO Report/RBI Inspection Report/ ICAI Report AUDITORS 1. Delloite Haskins Sells LLP - CA No. 190 of 2019 - Statutory Auditors from 2008-09 to FY 2017-18 - Proposed Addl. Resp No. 326 - Para 64, Annexure 1, Vol 1, CA 190 of 2014 @ Pg 74 Statutory auditors connived with the management of the company. Concealed material information/facts by not reporting on fraudulently falsified books and financial statements from FY 2011- 12 to 2017-18 Did not report the true state of affairs of the company, particularly negative NOF and negative CRAR, which led to loss to creditors of company who invested in NCDs. Auditors along with their engagement team did not perform their duties diligently. Despite having knowledge of impact of funding of default borrowers for principal and interest payments, auditors did not report in the Auditors Report from FY 2013-14 to 2017-18. (non-compliance of section 143(1)(a)) Attempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS 9. Surinder Singh Kohli - CA No. 214 of 2019 - Independent Director - Proposed Addl. Resp No. 328 - Para 66, Annexure 1, Vol 1, CA 190 of 2014 @ Pg 74 Part of the Audit Committee of IFIN Aware about the stressed asset portfolio, the modus operandi used for granting loans to group companies of existing defaulting borrowers, preventing the account from being classified as NPA. Did not ensure adequate disclosure or reporting of facts brought out by RBI Inspection Reports for FY 2016-17 and 2017-18 and non receipt of fees and income especially from group entities. 10. Subhalakshmi Panse - CA No. 221 of 2019 - Independent Director - Proposed Addl. Resp No. 329 - Para 67, Annexure 1, Vol 1, CA 190 of 2014 @ Pg 74 OTHER CATEGORIES OF DIRECTORS 11. Neera Saggi - CA No. 206 of 2019 - Independent Director - Proposed Addl. Resp No. 336 - Para 74, Annexure 1, Vol 1, CA 190 of 2014 @ Pg 78 Althoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up had failed to repay their earlier loans granted to them by IFIN. Wrongful loss ensued to IFIN as amount could not be recovered from Siva Group of the companies. Wrongful gain caused to C. Sivasankaran as the lending was fraudulently approved in furtherance of connivance with C. Sivasankaran. 74. It is submitted that Section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for powers and duties of the auditors and accounting standards. It provides that the financial statements provided by the Auditors should give a true and fair view of the state of company s affairs [Section 143(2)]. Further, Section 143(12) provides that if an auditor of the company, during the course of performance of his duties has reason to believe that an offence of fraud involving accounts, is being or has been committed in the company by its officers or employees, the auditors shall report to the Central Government. In view of the same, it is humbly submitted that the auditors failed to fulfil their statutory duties and report to the Central Government regarding the fraudulent accounts of IFIN . 75. Further, Section 149(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100% In addition to the above, the total subscribed and paid up capital of the 1st Respondent, presently is ₹ 983 Crores. 76.2. Although the equity shares of the IL FS are not listed on any stock exchange, the secured non-convertible debentures as well as the non-convertible redeemable cumulative preference shares of the IL FS are listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. There are six major group companies of the 1st Respondent which contribute over 60% to the consolidated assets of the IL FS Group . A brief of the four major group companies is provided hereunder:- a) IL FS Transportation Networks Limited (ITNL) ITNL, incorporated in the year 2000, has business activities ranging from developer, sponsor, construction manager and operator of surface transportation infrastructure, taking Greenfield Projects from conceptualization through commissioning to operations and management of such projects. The company develops projects on build, operate and transfer basis and is the largest vertical of the IL FS Group, admittedly holding over 40% of the total assets of the group. ITNL operates through special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, 2018. This has led to the resignation of the Managing Director CEO and four independent directors of IFIN on September 21, 2018. (iv) IEDCL, the IL FS s power generation subsidiary, has defaulted on its payment obligations since August 22 2018. 76.4. Furthermore, the IL FS has admitted that total debt across the IL FS Group is approximately ₹ 91,000 crore as on March 31, 2018 and the IL FS is contemplating monetizing of significant assets of the group companies for servicing the debts besides seeking further financial assistance from the institutional shareholders by way of a proposed rights issue. It is further submitted that the consolidated debt of the company increased to ₹ 91,091.3 crore in 2018 from ₹ 48,671.3 crore in 2014. Interest outgo rose to ₹ 7,922.8 crore from ₹ 3,970.7 crore during the same period. By 2018, the company has not even been making enough profits to take care of its interest expense leading to the default. It has to be kept in mind that out of the ₹ 91,000 crore debt obligations of the IL FS, ₹ 57,000 crore has been borrowed from the Public Sector Banks. 76.5. That subsequent to spreading defaults by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sibility for the fraudulent activities, misfeasance, persistent negligence and continuous defaults in carrying out their duties. Further, as a result of this fraudulent intent of such a huge magnitude, the entire stock market would be adversely affected which will have cascading impact not only on IL FS but on the business sentiment in particular and economy in general and on the large section of common investors and creditors, etc. The siphoning of funds have been systematically carried out by way of excessive withdrawal of remuneration and otherwise which is apparent as under: No. Name of the Director Rs. in Million SGD Euro 1 Mr. Ravi Parthasarathi 3.66 - 1315.79 2 Hari Sankaran 4.24 - 2631.58 3 Arun K Saha 4.68 6000 5263.16 Further, the fraudulent intent has been so apparent that many of the directors realized that IL FS alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... get the redemption amounts in a short period of time. Further, illiquid Corporate Debt Market and DHFL saga may force AMCs to sell Government Securities. Hence, Government Securities will face a huge selling pressure so either Bond Yield will shoot up to 8.30-8.50% levels or the RBI has to do OMO (Open Market Operations). If RBI Opts for OMO, then the Government s spending capacity will reduce by an equal amount. iii. NBFC licenses could be cancelled: In the wake of the IL FS crisis, as many as 1,500 smaller NBFCs may have their licenses cancelled because these don t have adequate capital. iv. Liquidity crunch: A liquidity crunch and recent events hitting market sentiment will lead to cost of funds for NBFCs increasing, impacting profitability. v. Impact on debt market as reported by NSE: Bond yields had increased already on the back of Oil Price and Rupee depreciating, Government bonds had seen yields rising from 7.70 to 8.20 levels. Corporate bond yields had widened commensurately. However post IFSL announcement and downgrade, the Mutual Funds, who are the main buyers in Corporate Bonds, have completely stopped buying. RBI s liquidity inducing measures and anno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. The indebtedness of the IL FS at the end of Financial year 2017-18 is about 16468 crores and with debt market drying up for this company, it would be quite difficult to raise the fresh debt to service the existing debt or to do ever greening of debt. The leverage levels are quite elevated and need to be reduced to some, manageable levels, which require new thinking, and new management. ii. IFIN, a Subsidiary of IF SL, is registered with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a Systemically Important Non-Deposit Accepting Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC-ND-SI). IFIN specializes in infrastructure financing transactions, with a unique combination of investment banking skill sets comprising of Debt Structuring and Distribution (DS D), Corporate Advisory and Lending capabilities. IFIN has evolved as one stop solution provider for all the Funding, Debt raising and Advisory requirements of the clients. The RBI in its inspection reports required IFIN to consider exposures as per section 370 (1B) of the Companies Act, 1956 (now replaced with the Companies Act, 2013) for determining companies in the same group . This impacts computation of Net Owned Funds (NOF) and Capital to Risk A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... developed for new businesses and products from time to time; b. provision of guidance on. strengthening of risk management practices to respond to emerging global and national market and regulatory developments; c. approval of overall limits for management of credit risk, liquidity risk and market risks; d. review of asset liability management reports and provision of directions on improved management of liquidity and interest rate risk; e. review of the capital adequacy requirements of the Company and provision of recommendations for the consideration of the Board in relation to the parameters to be considered in this regard; f. review of the Company s compliance programme; and g. review of the status of any enquiry, investigation and other disciplinary action initiated by RBI, SEBI or other regulatory agencies. Findings of this Appellate Tribunal: 77. As the matter is pending consideration before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to express any opinion whether the allegations made against one or other require further investigation and the order what is required to be passed in public interest. 78. The only question arises in these appeals is as to whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, on an application under subsection (2) of Section 241, the Tribunal can pass not only any order under Chapter XVI and if it is read with Section 246, it will be evident that Sections 339, 340 and 341 being applicable mutatis mutandis, in relation to an application made to the Tribunal under Section 241, the Tribunal can pass order in terms of those extended provisions. 51. This apart under Section 420, the Tribunal is empowered to pass such orders as it thinks fit after giving the parties to any proceeding before it, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal has also inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 . 52. Therefore, if sub-section (4) of Section 242 is read with Sections 339 340 and Section 221, it is clear that apart from freezing of assets of company on inquiry and investigation , it is also open to the Tribunal to freeze the assets of any person, including other companies and individuals, even during inquiry and investigation of fraud under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 . 80. Similar issue w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal under Section 130 of the Companies Act. As observed hereinabove, a larger public interest has been involved and reopening of the books of accounts and recasting of financial statements of the aforesaid companies is required to be carried out in the larger public interest, to find out the real truth, and as observed hereinabove both the conditions precedent while invoking power under Section 130 of the Companies Act are satisfied/complied with, therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Tribunal passed under Section 130 of the Companies Act, confirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, is not required to be interfered with. 81. The Hon ble Supreme Court in unequivocal terms has held that the provisions of Sections 130, 212 and 241/242 operate conjointly so as to give full effect to the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. 82. It is not necessary to discuss Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 for the present as the main issue is still pending consideration. The Ex- Auditors are to be removed or not is not the subject matter of Section 241(2) read with Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and (h) any other matter which may be prescribed. (3) Any order made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may be enforced by that Tribunal in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a court in a suit pending therein, and it shall be lawful for the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to send for execution of its orders to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,- (a)in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situate; or (b) in the case of an order against any other person, the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. (4) All proceedings before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 86. As rules of natural justice are to be follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
