Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

High Court Rules No Legal Right for Petitioners to Demand Reports During Investigation, Emphasizes on Uninterrupted Legal Procedures

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Kapil


In a significant ruling today, the High Court, led by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, delivered a crucial judgment in the case W.P.A. 23787 of 2023, involving petitioners Aloke Chatterjee and another versus the Union of India and another. The court firmly stated that there is no legal right for the petitioners to demand the furnishing of a report under Section 208 of the Companies Act, 2013, during the ongoing investigation stage.

The petitioners had argued that the non-furnishing of the report essentially rendered the investigation a farce. However, the court observed, “at this stage, there is no occasion or legal right of the petitioners to insist upon furnishing of a copy of the report filed by the ROC under Section 208.” This statement underlines the court’s stance on the procedural norms of investigations.

The case revolved around the petitioners’ contention that the investigation against them was flawed due to the non-receipt of a report, as purportedly required under the Companies Act, 2013. They argued that this omission violated the principles of natural justice and procedural norms. However, the court highlighted that “in every pre-investigation inquiry, rights of hearing have to be incorporated on an overly inflated conception of audi alteram partem, no investigation would reach its logical culmination.”

The court’s decision was informed by a careful analysis of the Companies Act, 2013, particularly Sections 206 to 210, and relevant legal precedents. Notably, the court referenced two judgments that dealt with similar provisions but found that they did not support the petitioners’ demands for the report during the investigation phase.

Date of Decision: 16th November 2023

Aloke Chatterjee and Another VS Union of India and another

Similar News