Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act and Affirms Powers of NCLT to Proceed Against Auditors

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has addressed the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, and upheld its validity. The court, in its judgment, stated that the provision is not arbitrary, excessive, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The ruling emphasizes the critical role of auditors in protecting the interests of stakeholders and affirms the legitimacy of Section 140(5) in dealing with cases of fraudulent conduct by auditors.

The case in question involves auditors BSR & Associates LLP and Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, who resigned from their positions as auditors of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS) amid allegations of financial irregularities. The Central Government initiated proceedings under Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking disgorgement and debarring of the auditors and their firms from auditing any other company for a period of five years.

Previously, the High Court had held that once auditors resign, the proceedings under Section 140(5) are not maintainable. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision and affirmed the maintainability of proceedings against auditors even after their resignation. The court clarified that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) possesses the authority to pass final orders on allegations of fraudulent conduct by auditors, regardless of their resignation.

The Supreme Court observed that Section 140(5) explicitly states that the powers conferred upon the NCLT shall be without prejudice to any action under the Companies Act, 2013, or any other prevailing law. Consequently, the court concluded that the maintainability of proceedings under Section 140(5) persists even after the auditors' resignation.

Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) and validated its existence. The court emphasized the pivotal role played by auditors in safeguarding the interests of stakeholders and recognized that Section 140(5) is justified in its intention to tackle fraudulent conduct by auditors.

The judgment holds significant implications for the auditing profession and strengthens the regulatory framework governing auditing practices in India. By upholding the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) and affirming the powers of the NCLT to proceed against auditors, the Supreme Court reinforces the accountability and responsibility of auditors in maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of financial reporting.

The ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving auditors' misconduct and provides clarity on the interpretation and application of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. It serves as a reminder of the importance of auditors in upholding the principles of transparency and accountability in corporate governance.

Date: May 3, 2023

Union of India and Another  VS Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP & Anr

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/03-May-2023-UOI-Vs-Deloitte-Haskins-and-Sells-LLP-^0-Anr.pdf"]

Latest Legal News