1978 (12) TMI 137 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the petitioner to file a petition under section 237 of the Companies Act.
2. Allegation of mala fide intentions behind filing the petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
The primary issue addressed in this judgment is whether the petitioner has the locus standi to file a petition under section 237 of the Companies Act. The petitioner, acting as the attorney of certain individuals, sought an investigation into the affairs of E.M.C. Steel Ltd. The respondents argued that the petitioner had no locus standi as he had no interest in the company as a shareholder, creditor, or otherwise.

Section 237 of the Companies Act allows the Central Government to appoint inspectors to investigate a company's affairs under certain conditions. The court examined whether this section permits any person, irrespective of their connection to the company, to request such an investigation. The court referenced the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., In re [1972] and Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd., In re [1975], which clarified that a petition under section 237 could be filed even if no other proceedings concerning the company were pending in the court.

However, the court emphasized that the principle of legal standing (locus standi) should still apply. The court stated that the legal maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium" implies that a person must have a legal right or interest to seek a remedy. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Chiranjilal Chaudhari v. Union of India [1950] and State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1952], which underscored that only those whose legal rights are affected can approach the court.

The court concluded that section 237 should not be interpreted to allow any person without a direct interest or connection to the company to seek an investigation. The court held that the petitioner, having no legal interest or grievance, lacked the locus standi to file the petition.

2. Allegation of Mala Fide Intentions:
The second issue was whether the petition was filed with mala fide intentions to harass the respondents. The respondents argued that the petition was intended to initiate a fishing enquiry into the company's affairs. The court examined the allegations and circumstances surrounding the petition, including the petitioner's pending litigation against the company.

The court found no substantial evidence to support the claim that the petition was filed with mala fide intentions. The court noted that the allegations in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the petition, although broad, did not warrant the dismissal of the petition on the grounds of mala fide intent. The court held that if the petitioner had made a case for investigation, the petition could not be dismissed merely due to the petitioner's motivations.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's lack of locus standi and dismissed the petition in limine. The court did not find sufficient grounds to dismiss the petition based on allegations of mala fide intentions. The judgment emphasizes the importance of legal standing in petitions for investigations under section 237 of the Companies Act, reinforcing the principle that only those with a legitimate legal interest can seek such remedies.