Premature writ challenge to Companies Act summons fails where the statutory inquiry is only at the information-gathering stage.

Writ petitions challenging summons issued under Section 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 were held premature because the statutory inquiry had only begun. The Registrar of Companies was acting within power to seek further information, explanations and documents on the alleged removal of directors and the manner in which resolutions were passed. Article 226 interference is justified only if the summons is shown to be without jurisdiction or without authority of law. Since no final adverse order had been passed and the petitioners' objections, including mediation and the alleged withdrawal of resolutions, were matters for the inquiry itself, the challenge was not maintainable at that stage and the Registrar could continue after giving a fair opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging summons issued under Section 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 were maintainable at the stage when the statutory enquiry had only commenced.

Analysis: Section 206 of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Registrar of Companies to call for information, explanations and documents, and to initiate inquiry where the materials furnished are inadequate or where the business of the company is suspected to be fraudulent, unlawful, or non-compliant. The summons in question were issued only to obtain further clarification and supporting documents regarding the alleged removal of directors and the manner in which the relevant resolutions were passed. No final adverse order had been passed, and the petitioners approached the Court before the statutory process was completed. Interference under Article 226 is warranted only where the summons is shown to be without jurisdiction or without authority of law. The objections raised by the petitioners, including the alleged pendency of mediation and the asserted dropping of the resolutions, were matters that the Registrar was required to consider in the enquiry itself.

Conclusion: The challenge was premature and not maintainable at this stage. The summons issued under Section 206(4) were within statutory power, and the Registrar was entitled to proceed with the enquiry after granting the petitioners a fair opportunity to raise objections and produce material.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition against a summons issued under the statutory power to call for information and conduct enquiry will not lie at the threshold unless the summons is shown to be without jurisdiction; mere commencement of the statutory enquiry does not justify judicial interference.

---