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>SFIO investigation reports under Section 212(12) Companies Act admissible as evidence in Section 212(14A) proceedings</h1> <h3>Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP Versus Union of India & Ors., Kalpesh Mehta Versus Union of India & Ors. And Udayan Sen Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP Versus Union of India & Ors., Kalpesh Mehta Versus Union of India & Ors. And Udayan Sen Versus Union of India & Ors. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:(i) Whether the Investigation Report submitted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under Section 212(12) of the Companies Act, 2013 is admissible in evidence, given the provisions of Section 223(5) read with Section 212(15) of the Companies Act, 2013.(ii) Whether the 2nd SFIO Report and the Compilation of Documents filed by the Respondent on 07.02.2024 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can be considered by the NCLT for deciding MA No.2070 of 2019, in light of the deeming fiction contained in Section 212(15) of the Companies Act, 2013.(iii) Whether there were sufficient pleadings in the Company Petition/Miscellaneous Application filed by the Respondent concerning the SFIO Report and the Compilation of Documents dated 17.02.2024.(iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the NCLT is legally sustainable.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISThe issues are inter-connected and analyzed together:Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The legal framework involves Sections 212 and 223 of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 212 deals with the investigation into the affairs of a company by the SFIO, while Section 223 pertains to the admissibility of the inspector's report in legal proceedings. Section 212(15) creates a legal fiction by deeming the SFIO report filed with the Special Court for framing charges as a report filed by a police officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 223(5) states that nothing in Section 223 applies to reports under Section 212, implying a different treatment for SFIO reports.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Court interpreted that the SFIO Report, although deemed a police report under Section 173 of the CrPC for the purpose of framing charges, is not inadmissible in proceedings under the Companies Act, particularly under Section 212(14A). The Court emphasized that the legal fiction under Section 212(15) should not be extended beyond its context, which is primarily for framing charges, not for excluding the report from other proceedings.Key Evidence and Findings:The SFIO Report was central to the proceedings, as it formed the basis for the impleadment of individual entities and the application for interim relief. The Report detailed the investigation into IL&FS and its subsidiaries, highlighting issues such as the role of directors, fund management, and compliance with RBI guidelines.Application of Law to Facts:The Court applied the legal principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the legislature is presumed to be aware of existing laws. The Court considered the purpose of the SFIO Report under Section 212(14A), which allows for proceedings based on the report, indicating its admissibility in such contexts.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The Appellants argued that the SFIO Report should be inadmissible as it is akin to a police report, which is not legal evidence. They relied on precedents asserting that a police report is merely an opinion. The Respondents contended that the SFIO Report serves broader purposes under the Companies Act and should be admissible for proceedings under Section 212(14A). The Court sided with the Respondents, emphasizing the legislative intent and the specific context of the legal fiction.Conclusions:The Court concluded that the SFIO Report and the Compilation of Documents are admissible and can be relied upon by the NCLT for proceedings under Section 212(14A). The interpretation that the report is inadmissible was rejected, as it would render Section 212(14A) meaningless.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:'The statutory interpretation on legal fiction as noticed above has repeatedly laid down that deeming fiction should not be extended beyond language of the section and must be limited to the context it was introduced.'Core Principles Established:The judgment established that legal fictions should not be extended beyond their intended purpose. The SFIO Report, while deemed a police report for framing charges, remains admissible in proceedings under Section 212(14A) of the Companies Act.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Court determined that the SFIO Report is admissible in proceedings under Section 212(14A), and the NCLT did not err in considering the report and associated documents. The appeals challenging the admissibility of the SFIO Report and the Compilation of Documents were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
