SFIO investigation requires a lawful inspection report; persistent repayment default alone does not establish fraud or justify summons.

SFIO investigation under the Companies Act, 2013 must rest on a legally compliant Section 208 report built on the statutory process under Sections 206 and 207. The court noted that the company had not been issued notice under Sections 206(1), 206(3) or 206(4), and the report relied mainly on persistent repayment defaults and complaints rather than a proper inspection or inquiry. It further held that default in repayment, even if persistent, does not by itself amount to fraud because fraud requires deception and dishonest intent. The report, the order directing SFIO investigation, and the consequential summons and notices were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inspection report and the consequential order assigning investigation to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, along with the summons and notices issued thereafter, were sustainable in law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Chapter XIV of the Companies Act, 2013 requires a sequence of inspection, inquiry and reporting before the Central Government may form an opinion under Section 212(1)(a). A report under Section 208 must be preceded by inspection or inquiry under Sections 206 and 207, and where the Registrar proceeds on allegations of fraudulent or unlawful business, the company must be informed of the allegations and given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The report placed before the Central Government was found to rest mainly on persistent repayment defaults and complaints, while also recording that the last inspection was in 2012 and recommending fresh inspection under Section 206. No notice under Section 206(1), Section 206(3), or Section 206(4) was issued before the report was made, and the report was not based on a proper inspection or inquiry in terms of the statute. Mere default in repayment, even if persistent and despite prior orders, was held not to amount to fraud, since fraud requires an element of deception and mens rea. As the foundation for invoking SFIO investigation was absent, the resultant exercise of power under Section 212 and the summons issued in aid of that investigation could not stand.

Conclusion: The report, the order directing SFIO investigation, and the summons/notices were quashed as being contrary to the statutory procedure and beyond jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, and the petitioners obtained complete relief against the impugned investigation and all consequential summons and notices.

Ratio Decidendi: SFIO investigation under Section 212 can be validly ordered only on a legally compliant Section 208 report founded on the statutory process under Sections 206 and 207, and persistent payment default by itself does not constitute fraud absent the requisite dishonest intent.

---