Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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