9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the order passed by the Company Law Board under section 634A of the Companies Act regarding the appointment of a retired Judge as Executing Authority for the execution of certain orders. Analysis: The appeal challenges the order of the Company Law Board appointing a retired Judge as the Executing Authority to execute specific orders. The Appellants argue that the appointment of an external authority for execution is beyond the scope of section 634A of the Act. They contend that if the Board couldn't execute the orders itself, it should refer the matter to a Civil Court. The Appellants also raise concerns about the broad authority given to the Executing Authority to dispose of company properties and deduct expenses without specifying the properties to be sold. They argue that the impugned order exceeds the purview of section 634A and is legally unsustainable. The Respondents justify the Board's order, stating that it was to facilitate execution and not a delegation of judicial functions. They argue that the Executing Authority's actions would be subject to the Board's final approval. The Respondents maintain that the order aligns with the Act and no legal issue necessitates the appeal. The Court examines section 634A, which allows the Board to enforce its orders as decrees in a suit. The Court notes that if the Board deems it unable to execute an order, it must refer the matter to the Civil Court. In this case, the Board expressed the need to use section 634A for execution but appointed an external authority. While the Board can seek assistance, it cannot delegate its decision-making authority. The Court finds fault with the order's lack of specificity on properties for sale, expenses deduction, and procedural details, which should be Board decisions. Consequently, the Court sets aside the order, directing the Board to reconsider the matter with proper guidance for future actions. In conclusion, the Court allows the appeal, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures and proper delineation of responsibilities in executing Board orders. The case underscores the importance of maintaining the statutory framework while executing Company Law Board decisions.
|
