2013 (9) TMI 1202 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order dated 16th September 2013 by the Company Law Board.
2. Impleadment of judicial officers as respondents.
3. Availability of alternative remedy u/s 10F of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Challenge to the order dated 16th September 2013 by the Company Law Board:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 16th September 2013 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB) in Company Petition No.110(ND)13. They argued that the order amounted to a review of the previous order dated 12th September 2013 without serving a copy of the petition or hearing the petitioners, which they claimed the CLB had no power to do. However, the court found that the CLB did not review its order as the hearing of submissions was not concluded on 16th September 2013.

2. Impleadment of judicial officers as respondents:
The petitioners had impleaded the CLB and its Member (Judicial) as respondents, which the court deemed impermissible. The Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, strongly deprecated such practices, stating it causes unnecessary disturbance to judicial officers' functions. The court reiterated that judicial officers should not be impleaded as contesting respondents in writ petitions or special leave petitions.

3. Availability of alternative remedy u/s 10F of the Companies Act, 1956:
The court highlighted that Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 provides an equally efficacious remedy of an appeal against every order of the CLB. The petitioners' contention that the appeal was not efficacious due to the lack of further statutory appeal was dismissed. The court emphasized that the availability of an appeal under Section 10F is sufficient and does not make the remedy non-efficacious.

4. Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court acknowledged that while the High Court's powers under Article 226 are wide, it generally refrains from exercising writ jurisdiction when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available. The court cited Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, where the Supreme Court held that writ petitions should not be entertained if a statutory remedy is available. The court concluded that the remedy of appeal under Section 10F was sufficient, and thus, the exercise of writ jurisdiction was not warranted in this case.

Conclusion:
The writ petition and applications were dismissed. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the CLB and the Registrar (Filing) to ensure compliance with the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court regarding the non-impleadment of judicial officers.