TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner's Enquiry Under Companies Act: Court Orders Prompt Conclusion</h1> <h3>Karvy Stock Broking Limited Versus The Union of India</h3> Karvy Stock Broking Limited Versus The Union of India - TMI Issues:1. Relief sought against the action of respondents in issuing notices under the Companies Act, 2013.2. Consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioner.3. Direction for the conclusion of the enquiry by respondents.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a Karvy Stock Broking Limited, filed a writ petition seeking relief against the respondents' actions in issuing notices dated 03.12.2019, 14.01.2020, and 24.01.2020, alleging contravention of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner requested the setting aside of the notices, declaring them illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The court heard arguments from both sides and decided to dispose of the petition by directing the respondents to proceed with the enquiry under Section 206(1) of the Act, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and concluding the enquiry within six months from the date of the court order.2. The respondents had initiated proceedings under Section 206(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and issued a notice to the petitioner on 14.01.2020. The petitioner company, in response, requested more time and subsequently submitted an explanation on 3.2.2020. The petitioner's counsel argued for the court to order the respondents to continue the enquiry, taking into account the petitioner's explanation submitted on 3.2.2020. The Assistant Solicitor General representing the respondents assured that the explanation would be considered, and the enquiry would proceed in accordance with the law, providing an opportunity to the petitioner.3. After considering the submissions from both sides, the court decided to dispose of the writ petition by instructing the respondents to proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner under Section 206(1) of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's explanation and concluding the enquiry promptly, preferably within six months from the date of the court order. The judgment did not impose any costs on the parties involved, and it directed the closure of any pending miscellaneous petitions.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, detailing the relief sought, the consideration of the petitioner's explanation, and the direction given for the conclusion of the enquiry by the respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
