Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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