Criminal proceedings for alleged false filings rejected where prior company orders supported appointment-related acts and DIN activation was procedural.

The application sought criminal proceedings on the allegation that a common reply and supporting affidavit were filed through an unauthorised representative and that false statements or documents were used despite earlier orders on the director's appointment and record updation. The Tribunal noted prior NCLT orders recognising the appointment process and directing updation of records, and treated the later activation of the DIN as procedural. It also referred to the broad scope of company-law jurisdiction under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 in accepting the appointment-related acts relied on by the respondent. On that basis, it found no reason to initiate criminal proceedings and dismissed the application.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings ought to be initiated against the respondent on the allegation that a common reply and supporting affidavit were filed through an unauthorised representative and false statements or documents were used despite prior orders concerning appointment and record updation of the director.

Analysis: The application was founded on the assertion that the director's authority and the subsequent activation of DIN were invalid, and that the common reply and affidavit filed before the Tribunal were therefore false. The material placed before the Tribunal showed earlier NCLT orders recognising the appointment process and directing record updation, and the subsequent activation of DIN was treated as procedural in nature. The Tribunal also accepted the broad remit of the company-law jurisdiction under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 as supporting the validity of the appointment-related acts relied upon by the respondent.

Conclusion: The Tribunal found no reason to initiate criminal proceedings and dismissed the application.

---