TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an investigation and file a report. Accordingly, the Registrar filed a report on April 3, 2012. The report would reveal, the company had issued share premium to large number of companies mostly private companies on the same day and used funds for investments to a small extent and made advances to others. There were crores of investments involving a large number of private companies. His Lordship directed the Director, Revenue Intelligence to conduct an enquiry as to whether there was any money trail. The company preferred an appeal. On August 8, 2012 we disposed of the appeal by observing, "in case His Lordship would pass any order on the basis of the report His Lordship should give opportunity to the appellant to deal with the same before any order was passed against them. On August 31, 2012 His Lordship expressed displeasure as the Director, Revenue Intelligence did not carry out the order of this Court. His Lordship directed the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to do so. Accordingly, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs asked the SFIO to conduct such investigation. SFIO submitted a report inter alia pointing out irregularity in the affairs of the company. The matter came up before His....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould contend, the learned Judge should either allow his petition for holding meetings of the shareholders to ascertain their wishes or dismiss it if His Lordship would otherwise deem fit and proper, so that the appellant could take further steps in the matter. His Lordship, without deciding the issue for which the appellant approached the Court, would not be competent to postpone this issue for eternity and that too, by directing investigation that would be in excess of the power conferred upon His Lordship by the appropriate laws of the land. Mr. Mookherjee was critical about the series of orders that His Lordship passed from time to time. Commenting on the report, Mr. Mookherjee would contend, SFIO submitted its report observing, "Chartered Accountant did not sign the balance sheet". According to him, the Chartered Accountant used his digital signature. In any event, the company could not get any opportunity to cross-examine him, in fact, sufficient opportunity was not given to the company to offer explanation on the issue. Mr. Mookherjee would rely upon Rule 67 and 69 of the Company (Court) Rules 1959 to contend, the learned Judge exceeded jurisdiction that was conferred upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at such violation was burdensome, harsh and wrongful. But a series of illegal acts falling upon one another can, in the context, lead justifiable to the conclusion that they are a part of the same transaction, of which the object is to cause or commit the oppression of persons against whom those acts are directed". He would also rely upon the English decision Macfoy (supra) where Lord Denning observed, "you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there". Mr. Mookherjee would contend, the learned Judge did not have the competence at all to direct a particular agency to conduct the investigation. Even if any investigation was carried out same would be of no consequence as it would have no legal sanctity. Mr. Mookherjee would rely upon the Apex Court decision in Dale & Carrington (supra) to contend, an order would be perverse if it had no support from the evidence. Mr. Mookherjee cited the Apex Court decision in the case of Rainbow Denim (supra) and Chembra Orchard (supra) to find out the scope of Section 391, to contend, the learned Judge exceeded in His jurisdiction to direct investigation, that too, by specified agency. The other two decisions in the case of Bangeswar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved, Central Government would be free to choose the agency through whom they would carry on investigation and would be free to take any step as may be found appropriate. We categorically observed, "the direction for continuation of investigation should be treated as a declaration under Section 237A and not a mandate upon the Central Government". In a matter of like nature [(Bhagyraaj Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.) (APO 424 of 2012)] His Lordship directed similar investigations to be carried out. We observed as follows: "The judgment and order impugned is affirmed with the following modifications:- i) The cost of rupees seventeen thousand would be paid within two weeks from date. Rupees eight thousand five hundred should be paid to the Central Government whereas the balance sum of rupees eight thousand five hundred be paid to the State Legal Service Authority, West Bengal. ii) The order of restraint passed by His Lordship restraining the appellants from moving an identical application for five years, is set aside. The appellants would however be obliged to state in detail, the sequence of events resulting in disposal of this appeal and would annex all orders in the present proceedin....