1984 (2) TMI 294 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Company Law Board (Bench) Rules, 1975 regarding the procedure for invoking the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board Bench.
2. Compliance with Rule 28 of the Company Law Board (Bench) Rules, 1975 for appearance before the Bench.
3. Application of sub-rules (4) of Rule 28 in specific scenarios.
4. Justification of returning papers by the Bench Officer based on non-compliance with Rule 28.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which filed papers through its advocates under specific sections and rules but had them returned by the Bench Officer citing non-compliance with Rule 28 of the Company Law Board (Bench) Rules, 1975. The petitioner argued that Rule 28 was not applicable except for appearance before a Bench and that sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 was not relevant when a person is represented by counsel. The court analyzed the Rules, emphasizing that the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Bench is accomplished by compliance with Rule 12, not Rule 28. The respondents' contention focused solely on the non-compliance with Rule 28, which the court found to be incorrect.

The court delved into the provisions of Rule 28, highlighting the rights of a party to appear before the Bench through an authorized representative. It clarified that sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 applies only in specific cases where a director, secretary, Regional Director, or Registrar appears on behalf of a company. For general representation by an authorized representative like an advocate, chartered accountant, or company secretary, sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 28 are applicable. The court emphasized that the filing of a memorandum of appearance in Form No. 4 is necessary only for the purpose of hearing before the Bench, not for the initial filing of an application with the Bench Officer.

The court explained that the advocate's authorization, usually the vakalath, suffices for representing a party during the initial filing stage, and the memorandum in Form No. 4 is required only during the hearing. Non-compliance with Rule 28(4) was deemed unjustified for returning the papers sent by the advocates, and the court directed the Bench Officer to accept the papers when duly presented in compliance with the rules. The judgment allowed the original petition on these terms without imposing any costs, emphasizing the correct interpretation and application of the Company Law Board (Bench) Rules, 1975.