Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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