Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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