Criminal Courts, Not Company Law Board, Have Jurisdiction Over Penal Provisions

The court clarified that penal provisions under the Companies Act, 1956 fall within the jurisdiction of criminal courts, not the Company Law Board. The judgment emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal jurisdiction, stating that criminal penalties must be adjudicated by competent criminal courts. The Board's powers are akin to a civil court for certain matters, not for penal jurisdiction. The court allowed the petition, setting aside lower court orders and reaffirming the role of criminal courts in adjudicating criminal liability and punishment under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of Company Law Board under Companies Act, 1956 in relation to criminal liability and punishment.

In the judgment delivered by N.J. Pandya, J., the issue at hand was the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under the Companies Act, 1956, specifically in relation to criminal liability and punishment. The petitioner argued that the lower courts erred in accepting the plea that only the Board had jurisdiction to impose punishment under section 113(2) of the Act. The petitioner contended that civil liability under the statute is distinct from criminal penalties, which must be adjudicated by a competent criminal court. The amendment in 1986 introduced the Board as a substitute for a civil court, but the essence of penal provisions remained within the realm of criminal courts.

The judgment highlighted the distinction between civil and criminal jurisdiction, emphasizing that penal provisions must be adjudicated by a competent criminal court established under the Criminal Procedure Code. The introduction of the Company Law Board through amendments did not alter the nature of penal provisions under the Companies Act, which continued to fall under the purview of criminal courts. The court clarified that the Board's powers were akin to those of a civil court for certain civil matters, not for exercising penal jurisdiction.

The court analyzed the provisions of section 113 of the Companies Act, noting that the default specified in the section entailed criminal liability in the form of punishment, falling within the jurisdiction of a magisterial court exercising criminal jurisdiction. The judgment also addressed the power of the Board under section 113(3) to issue directions for giving certificates, likening it to the powers of a civil court for specific performance decrees. However, this did not extend to exercising penal jurisdiction, which remained within the domain of criminal courts.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the argument that only the Board had jurisdiction to handle complaints under the Companies Act, 1956, was baseless. The petition was allowed, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside, thereby making the rule absolute. The judgment underscored the distinction between civil and criminal jurisdiction in the context of penal provisions under the Companies Act, reaffirming the role of criminal courts in adjudicating criminal liability and punishment.

---