MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News