Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

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