Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

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