CLB cannot entertain standalone petitions under Section 247(1A) of Companies Act.

The court held that the Company Law Board (CLB) cannot entertain an independent petition under Section 247(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956, as it must be part of ongoing proceedings. The expression "in the course of any proceedings before it" implies that Section 247(1A) should be exercised during existing proceedings. The court found the petition filed solely under Section 247(1A) to be not maintainable and dismissed it, setting aside the CLB's judgment. The appeal was allowed without imposing costs, recognizing the respondent's effort, albeit unsuccessful, to invoke the CLB's authority.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Company Law Board (CLB) to receive a stand-alone petition under Section 247(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Interpretation of the expression "in the course of any proceedings before it" in Section 247(1A).
3. Applicability and scope of Sections 237(b) and 247(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Whether the petition filed before the CLB was maintainable.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of the Company Law Board (CLB) to receive a stand-alone petition under Section 247(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956:
The primary issue was whether the CLB could entertain an independent petition under Section 247(1A) for investigating the ownership of a company. The appellant argued that Section 247(1A) could not be invoked independently and must be part of ongoing proceedings. The court agreed, stating that the expression "in the course of any proceedings before it" implies that the authority under Section 247(1A) should be exercised during existing proceedings and not as a stand-alone petition.

2. Interpretation of the expression "in the course of any proceedings before it" in Section 247(1A):
The court emphasized that the phrase "in the course of any proceedings before it" should be understood to mean "during any proceedings." The court noted that interpreting this phrase to allow for an independent petition would render the expression meaningless. The court concluded that the authority under Section 247(1A) could only be exercised during the pendency of other proceedings before the CLB.

3. Applicability and scope of Sections 237(b) and 247(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956:
The court examined the relationship between Sections 237(b) and 247(1A) and found that while Section 237(b) allows for an investigation into the affairs of a company at the discretion of the Central Government or the CLB, Section 247(1A) specifically pertains to investigating the ownership of a company. The court held that Section 247(1A) could not be invoked independently and must be part of ongoing proceedings, whereas Section 237(b) could be invoked more broadly.

4. Whether the petition filed before the CLB was maintainable:
The court examined the petition filed by the respondent and concluded that it primarily sought relief under Section 247(1A) without conforming to the requirements of Section 237(b). The court held that since the petition did not seek any relief under Section 237(b) and was solely based on Section 247(1A), it was not maintainable. The court set aside the CLB's judgment and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the CLB's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's petition as not maintainable. The court emphasized that Section 247(1A) could not be invoked independently and must be part of ongoing proceedings before the CLB. The court did not impose any costs, recognizing that the respondent's attempt to invoke the CLB's authority was not ignoble.

---