Delhi High Court
Ms Shankari Ghosh vs Company Law Board And Ors. on 3 November, 2003
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 17.9.2001 which the petitioner received from the Company Law Board in respect of his application under Section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956. By the impugned letter, the petitioner's application was returned due to the following reasons:
" The case has been disposed off/scheme sanctioned. You are, requested to contact the company in this regard.
2. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is merely an administrative communication by the Bench Officer and not a disposal of his application by the Company Law Board as envisaged under Section 58A(9) of Companies Act, 1956. The said provision is set out herein below:-
"[(9)Where a company has failed to repay any deposit or part thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit, the Company Law Board may if it is satisfied, either on its own motion or on the application of the depositor, that it is necessary so to do to safeguard the interests of the company, the depositors or in the public interest, direct, by order, the company to make repayment of such deposit or part thereof forthwith or within such time and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order:
Provided that the company Law Board may, before making any order under this sub-section, give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the company and the other persons interested in the matter."
2. From the above provision, it is clear that the Company Law Board either on its own motion or on the application of a party has to come to a satisfaction either way that an order be passed or not be passed under the said provision. The proviso also indicates that the Company Law Board may, before making any order, give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the interested persons.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that principle of natural justice are inbuilt into the aforesaid provisions and there must be some application of mind if an application under this provision is made before the Company Law Board and there must be an order regarding the satisfaction of the Company Law Board or otherwise disposing of such an application.
4. I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned letter dated 17.9.2001 which has been issued by the Bench Officer of the Company Law Board would not amount to a disposal of his application in terms of the provisions of Section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956. Accordingly, the said letter is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Company Law Board for a decision afresh on the petitioner's application which had been filed on 27.8.2001 but had been returned along with the impugned letter dated 17.9.2001. The petitioner shall within a week from today re-submit the application along with the necessary demand draft etc and the same would be disposed of by the Company Law Board in accordance with law.
5. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
dusty.
