Special Court jurisdiction upheld for false-evidence complaints, but a non-reasoned cognizance order was set aside for reconsideration.
A complaint alleging false evidence in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal was maintainable before the Special Court under the Companies Act, 2013 because the Act creates Special Courts, gives them overriding effect through its non obstante clause, and permits cognizance on a written complaint by specified persons; the bar under section 195 CrPC did not operate as a bar on the facts. The cognizance and summons order, however, was set aside because it did not show adequate reasons or proper judicial application of mind, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by a reasoned order.
Issues: (i) whether a complaint alleging false evidence in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal could be entertained and tried by the Special Court under the Companies Act, 2013 despite the bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and (ii) whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was liable to be set aside for want of reasons and fresh consideration.
Issue (i): whether a complaint alleging false evidence in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal could be entertained and tried by the Special Court under the Companies Act, 2013 despite the bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Analysis: Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for Special Courts for speedy trial of offences under the Act. Section 436 contains a non obstante clause and gives overriding effect over the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences triable by the Special Court. Section 449 of the Companies Act, 2013 creates the offence of intentionally giving false evidence and is an offence under the Act. Section 439(2) permits cognizance on a written complaint by the Registrar, a shareholder or member of the company, or a person authorised by the Central Government. On that basis, the complaint was held maintainable before the Special Court and the objection based on Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not accepted as a bar in the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable before the Special Court and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.
Issue (ii): whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was liable to be set aside for want of reasons and fresh consideration
Analysis: The order taking cognizance did not record adequate reasons or show proper judicial application of mind. A private complaint required a reasoned order at the stage of cognizance, and a bare observation that grounds existed was held insufficient. For that reason, the cognizance order was interfered with and the matter was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The cognizance and summons order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a fresh reasoned order.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the limited extent of setting aside the cognizance order, while the maintainability of the complaint and the competence of the Special Court were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Companies Act, 2013 creates a Special Court mechanism with a non obstante clause and specifies who may lodge a complaint, the Special Court may entertain the complaint, but the order taking cognizance must disclose a reasoned application of mind; otherwise, it is liable to be set aside for fresh consideration.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
