9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation under Section 212 of the 2013 Act, on the other hand, is not by the Union Government but by the SFIO. It becomes pertinent to note that the SFIO itself came to be constituted pursuant to the provisions contained in Section 211. In fact, even before the said provision came to be engrafted and enforced, the SFIO appears to have been constituted pursuant to the resolution of the Union Government dated 02 July 2003. As is manifest from a conjoint reading of Sections 211 and 212, the power of investigation which was originally exercisable by the Union Government was ultimately and in terms of Sections 211 and 212 placed in the hands of the SFIO. The SFIO is envisaged to be a body duly constituted for the purposes of carrying out investigations into the affairs of companies. Regard must be had to the fact that while the erstwhile provisions empowered the Union to investigate into the affairs of a company through investigators, the new regime saw the constitution of the SFIO and an investigation being undertaken by it in accordance with Sections 212 and 213 of the 2013 Act - the SFIO as an investigating arm of the Union was not even envisaged or contemplated under the 1956 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Serious Fraud Investigation Office [SFIO] intimating them of the initiation of an investigation under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 [The 2013 Act] and the appointment of an Investigating Officer in connection therewith. The petitioners also seek an issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking further proceedings pursuant to the impugned summons. 2. The challenge is essentially based on the contention of the petitioners that since proceedings under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 [The 2013 Act] had been initiated prior to the enforcement of Section 212 of the 2013 Act, the respondents stand denuded of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings afresh under Section 212. It is also contended that the provisions of the 1956 Act came to be repealed only upon the energization of Section 465 of the 2013 Act on 30 January 2019. It is in that light that it was urged that since the provisions of the 1956 Act prevailed till at least 30 January 2019, no proceedings under Section 212 of the 2013 Act could have been initiated. The challenge is additionally founded upon the judgment and orders passed in an earlier round of litigation which was instituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Serious Fraud Investigation officer, who are hereby appointed as Inspectors for the purpose of such investigation: 1. Shri P.R. Lakra, Addl. Director 2. Shri R.K. Mishra, Sr. Asstt. Director 3. Shri Prem Sunder Singh, Asstt. Director 4. The Inspectors so appointed by this order to investigate into the affairs of the above mentioned company, shall exercise all the powers available to them under the Companies Act, 1956. The Inspector shall complete their investigation and submit the report to the Central Government within a period of three (3) months from the date of issue of this order. 5. This order is issued for and on behalf of the Central Government. (R.K. Bakshi) Deputy Director Copy forwarded for necessary action to:- 1. Director, SFIO, New Delhi 2. Shri P.R. Lakra, Addl. Director 3. Shri R.K. Mishra, Sr. Asstt. Director 4. Shri Prem Sunder Singh, Asstt. Director 6. AIRL in the meanwhile instituted W.P.(C) 7529 of 2012 before this Court impugning the communication of the RoC dated 27 March 2012. While entertaining the said petition, the Court on 04 December 2012 provided that while it would be open to the AIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Limited, Alchemist Realty Limited, Alchemist Life Science Limited, Netedge Technosoft Private Limited, Alchemist Capital Limited, Alchemist Hotels Resorts Limited and their Associates/subsidiaries or any other company which is related to /part of Alchemist Group under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013. 4. That the Central Government hereby authorize Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office to nominate Inspector(s) under section 212 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013 in investigate into the affairs of the above mentioned companies. The said investigation shall be carried out by officers of the as nominated by Director, SFIO. 5. That the Inspector(s) so appointed shall exercise all the powers available to him under section 217 of the Companies Act, 2013 including power conferred under section 219 of the Companies Act, 2013 after seeking approval of Central Government where ever required. The inspector(s) complete the investigation and submit the report to the Central Government within a period of 03 (three) Months. 6. This order is issued for and on behalf of the Central Government. Sd/- (V.R. Sheth) Assistant Director To: 1. Dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the Act or the Companies Act, 2013. 13. Since, it is not disputed that the order dated 05.11.2012 directing investigation of the affairs of the petitioner company under Section 235 of the Act and the order dated 14.12.2012 appointing inspectors also follow from the orders passed under Section 234(7) of the Act, the said orders are also set aside. This would not preclude respondent no. 1 from directing investigation of the affairs of the petitioner company either on the report submitted by the Registrar or in Public Interest. 12. It appears that AIRL aggrieved by the observations entered by the learned Judge in the final judgement according liberty to the respondents to initiate penal proceedings either in accordance with the 1956 Act or alternatively under the 2013 Act, it assailed the said directions as contained in the final judgment by way of LPA 189 of 2019. The aforesaid LPA came to be disposed of on 18 March 2019 with the Division Bench holding as follows:- According to Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Advocate, by virtue of the aforesaid provision the inquiry or investigation into the matter has to be in accordance with the provisions of Sections 234 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... development, SFIO issued a communication dated 13 June 2019 to the first petitioner, Alchemist Healthcare Limited, being one of the companies under investigation requiring it to provide information in respect of the investigation which had been commenced in respect of the affairs of the Alchemist Group of Companies. Alchemist Healthcare asserting that the same clearly amounted to a wilful disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court instituted an action for contempt and which came to be numbered as Contempt Case (C) No. 610/2019. 17. In a related development, CM. APPL. 16956 of 2019 came to be disposed of on 31 July 2019 by the Division Bench while continuing the interim order that had been passed and which was directed to remain operative during the pendency of the contempt case. 18. The contempt action as initiated by Alchemist Healthcare ultimately came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Court with costs in the following terms:- 10. Quite strangely, after the disposal of the LPA in the foregoing terms, a CM No. 16956/2015 came to be filed before the Division Bench on account of summons issued by SFIO to Alchemist Ltd. and Alchemist Hotels Resort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication stand disposed of. Summons dated 20.03.2019 issued by the respondents speaks about action taken in accordance with the Companies Act, 2013. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to clarify the position within two weeks. List on 17th July, 2019. In the meanwhile, any coercive steps in terms of order dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure A-1) and summons dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure A-2) issued by the respondents shall be kept in abeyance. However in case the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 wish to proceed strictly in accordance with the directions issued by us on 18.03.2019, they may do so. Assuming, the foregoing order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Division Bench took into its scope Healthcare as a group company of Infra Realty, though, it is not so, the restraint order was to apply against taking any coercive steps, which, mere issuance of summons would not imply. 11. Seen from any angle, not even an iota of substance emerges from the record to say that any act of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 invites any order prayed for. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are of no avail. It would suffice to say, the initiation of contempt proceedings depends on the facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act, 1956. Respected Sir, This is in reference to Directorate s letter no. TS/D/R/234(1)/2012/36/2387 dated 29.5.2012 and in continuation to this office letter no. COMP/16544 dated 18.5.2012 in the captioned matter. I have to report as under: 1. The company, Alchemist Infra Realty Limited, is incorporated with this office vide CIN U74120DL200BPLC17678 on 02.04.2008. 2. This office has received reference from Reserve Bank of India vide letter no. DNBS/2386/MI/20.02007-2010-11 dated 12.01.2012 with the subject Raising of Deposits from Public stating that a letter has been received from Shri D. Raja, Hon ble Member of Parliament raising issues with regard to various companies and companies mentioned at S. no. 9 and 12, namely Alchemist Infra Realty Limited and Basil International Limited are registered with the ROC, Delhi. These companies are not NBFC registered with RBI and this are being sent for appropriate action at the end of this office (ROC Delhi). A similar letter from RBI dated 09.01.2012 was also enclosed to the above referred letter received on the same date (copies of both are letters are enclosed as Annexure A-1and A-2 respectively). 3. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany vide this office letter dated 18.1.2011 (copy collectively enclosed as Annexure-A-4). b. Various RTI Applications received from Shri Chandan Kumar, enclosing therewith certain blank agreement format. Certificate of property, nontransfer of deposits receipts, pre-serialized application forms format of special Power of Attoney etc. circulated by the company. (Copies collectively enclosed marked as Annexure-A-5). c. RTI application from Sardar Atikurahman Arif, Balia, U.P. enclosing therewith the documents as stated in (b) above and also photo-copy of pamphlet offering immovable property and calling of deposits from the public signed by Dr. B. M. Mahajan, Director of the captioned company and also the broachers indicating the name of the group companies, group head office, group chairman, blanked duly serialized application forms and group chairman, blanked duly serialized application forms and either documents (Copy collectively marked as Annexure-A-6). d. RTI application from Mumtaj Ahmed enclosing similar documents. (Copy collectively marked as Annexure-A-7). e. RTI application from Rajesh Prajapati, Gorakhpur and Shri BK Singh enclosing similar documents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office has issued final order u/s. 234(3A) of the Act vide order dated 12.06.2012 (Copy collectively marked as Annexure-A-19). 15. The company furnished its part reply vide letter dated 26.06.2012 (Copy collectively marked as Annexure-A-20) and the company promised to furnish the reply on the remaining Paras within two weeks from thereof. 16. On examination of the partial reply of the company, it was felt that the reply of the company was incomplete/evasive on various vital points and it was also felt necessary that further information/explanation and record is required from the company. There were also preliminary doubts on the signatures and names of the directors shown to have signed the reply. Thus accordingly order u/s. 234 (3A) of the Act was issued to the company vide order dated 06.07.2012 (copy collectively marked as Annexure-A-21). 17. In response to the said order, the company again filed very short reply vide letter dated 11.07.2012 prima-facie in a attempt to clarify the primarily doubts and confirmed the name of the directors who has signed the reply and further promised to submit the reply on or before 20.07.2012 (copy collectively marked as annexure- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reserves Surplus Accumulative Profits 2.95 6.18 Current Liabilities Sundry Creditor, other liabilities provisions 1.98 8.18 Grand Total 454.76 1102.45 b. The utilization of funds so received are as under:- Main Head Sub-Head 31.03.2010 (Rs. in crores) 31.03.2011 (Rs.in crores) Current Assets Advanced receivable in cash and kind 283.79 806.61 Current Assets Cash bank balances 160.37 242.53 Other current assets 10.11 44.24 Fixed assets 0.21 0.44 Investments 0.25 7.86 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P. c. It is requested to see a copy of certificate attached to the complaint and as also copy as annexed to the order u/s 234(3A) dated 06.07.12 issued to the company (Refer Annexure A-21) d. It is important to note that as per the stock in trade of land given by the company as per reply No. 13 to its reply dated 26.06.2012; the company was never having any land at the above address. Only land shown is MP Land only 52.60 Hectares (Balance as at 31.03.2010 Rs. 1284793/- an Rs. 19934514/-) against which the company has collected huge amount of Rs. 1097 69 .Crores. e. It is also a very surprising fact that the area of land remains the same for Rs. 3 lacs accepted on 27.04.2010 and also for Rs. 1.10, 000 in 28.01.2010 as per certificate of property, allotment numbers RC00143964 and RC00259531 (copies enclosed marked as Annexure A-24). f. The high scale of aggressively raising public deposits is evident from the fact that the prenumbered applications forms are being circulated. One such pre-application numbered form with Serial No. 01072306 has been enclosed to the reference received through RBI as enclosed to the letter from the Hon'ble MP. g. The allegati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 31.03.2011, out of which Rs. 215.65 crores are stated to be in fixed deposits with banks. However, despite of specific query raised by this office vide para No. 11 of the order dated 27.03.2012, the company has given only a list naming the banks where FDRs are stated to be kept has been given. No copy of the FDRs receipt has been given. This also requires to be verified. 24. Directors of the Company: The following are the past and present directors of the captioned company: a. Shri Brij Mohan Mahajan from 02.04.2008 and still continuing. b. Shri Sunil Kanti Kar from 02.04.2008 and still continuing. c. Shri Narayan Madhav Kumar from 20.02.2009 and still continuing. d. Shri Balvir Singh from 02.04.2008 to 09.02.2009. e. Shri Chandra Shekhar Chauhan from 04.02.2009 to 20.02.2009. 25. Directorship in other company: Kindly find enclosed herewith report indicating the companies in which the directors of the company are interested as directors. In addition to this, Directors of this company remained directors in the following group companies (Copies of Register of directors is enclosed collectively marked as Annexure a-25: Name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or on the Board of this company in so form 2 s for Preference shares, the attachments for list of allottees run up to 1250 Pages (A18949164) , 1240 pages (A29827540), 1374 pages ( A36828242) and 1625 Pages (A49718067) 27. Shareholding pattern of the company; List of Shareholders as taken from the latest Annual return Filed for 2011 is attached (Annexure A- 26) In view of above, it is respectfully submitted that the larger interest is involved in the captioned company. The observation given hereinabove indicate the possibility of a larger well planned, collusive financial impropriety, financial and accounting irregularities, taping of retail capital market in the garb of various schemes, advance against development charges, issue of shares etc are without following the statutory requirement of the Companies Act. 1956. SEBI Rules Regulations etc. which can harm the interest of thousands of small depositors in addition to possible loss of government revenue (stamp duty etc.) and the affairs of the company are being managed in manner prejudicial interests of its creditors, depositors, other stakeholders and against the public interest. It is. therefore, respectfully submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Company had collected huge money from public and diverted to Land Owning companies, Collaborators, Joint Venture partners and its Associate Companies. Even it failed to recover the amount given to its debtors. Therefore, a detailed investigation under Section 210 of the Companies Act, 2013 is required not only in case of this company but also in the matter of it holding company namely Alchemist Infra Ventures Limited and other Group/Associate companies/Land Owning companies/Joint Venture Partners. 2. Alchemist Limited On going through the latest filed Balance Sheet as at 31-032017, it is observed that the Company have negative Net worth of Rs. 82 crores but it had shown Long term Borrowings of Rs. 735 Crores which was mainly used in Non-current Investments of Rs. 171 crores and Trade Receivables of Rs. 470 Crores (there was no recovery from such receivables during the year 2016-17. A detailed Sheet in the matter of the company has been prepared and enclosed herewith as Annexure-B. This company appears to be a conduit between companies of Alchemist Group. The Company has done huge transactions with its related or associate companies. Only inquiry or inspection o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrowings Rs. 305 Crores), which were later on diverted as advances etc. (including to subsidiary companies) and not recovered, so far as per terms conditions. No significant recovery has been found in matter of Trade Receivables. It is also an example of diversion of funds, therefore it is proposed that a detailed Investigation under Section 210 of the Companies Act, 2013 is required not only in case of this company but also in the matter of Group/Associate companies. A detailed Sheet in the matter of the company has been prepared and enclosed herewith as Annexure-D. 6. Alchemist Life Sciences Limited On examination of Balance Sheet as at 31-03-2017, it is observed that the Company has collected funds from Related Parties for Rs. 51 Crores, which was ultimately converted into losses resultant Negative Net worth. It shows mis-utilisation of funds of the company. The matter is required to be investigated. A detailed Sheet in the matter of the company has been prepared and enclosed herewith as Annexure-E. 7. Netedge Technosoft Private Limited On going through the Balance Sheet as at 31-03-2018, it is observed that the Company had shown Long Term Borrowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22351 4. Alchemist Realty Limited Net Worth 24 Long Term Loans advances 61 Long term Borrowings 305 Trade Receivables (Old) 152 5. Alchemist Life Sciences Limited Long-Term Borrowing from Related Parties 51 Negative Net Worth 50 6. NetedgeTechosoft Private Limited Long Term Borrowings 44 Non-current investments 26 Loans and advances 12 Note 1. Alchemist Infra Realty Limited is not included in above list as it has already been order for investigation by the Ministry. 2. Figures in above table has been taken from last filed Financial Statements of the Companies. In view of above facts, it is stated that inquiry/inspection of one or two companies will not serve any purpose because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill 30 January 2019, when Section 465 came to be enforced and led to the ultimate repeal of the said enactment, the respondents stand deprived of the jurisdiction to commence any investigation under the umbrella of the 2013 enactment. 26. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned counsel appearing for the SFIO, while controverting the aforesaid submissions firstly drew our attention to the report of the RoC dated 27 March 2012 to submit that a plain reading of that report would indicate that the investigation at that stage stood initiated only against AIRL. This position, according to Mr. Singh, is further fortified from a reading of the recommendation of the RoC dated 24 August 2012, which too was restricted to the captioned company namely, AIRL. 27. According to Mr. Singh, the aforesaid position is also manifest from a reading of the ultimate order which the Union Government framed on 05 November 2012 and where the investigation was specifically confined to AIRL. According to Mr. Singh, it would therefore be wholly incorrect for the petitioners to contend that the investigation initiated prior to the submission of the commencement of proceedings on 06 December 2018 could be recognized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Alchemist Healthcare Limited January 29, 2016 2 Alchemist Life Sciences Limited August 14, 2002 3 Alchemist Township India Limited July 04, 2006 4 Alchemist Limited July 05, 1988 5 Alchemist Holdings Limited December 22, 1995 6 Alchemist Realty Limited March 03, 1983 7 NetedgeTechnosoft Private Limited January 29, 2016 8 Alchemist Capital Limited December 13, 2000 9 Alchemist Hotels Resorts Limited May 06, 2008 33. Having noticed the submissions addressed by learned counsels for respective sides, we propose to firstly deal with the legal challenge as canvassed for our consideration by Mr. Chaudhri and which turned upon the comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. [(3-A) If no information or explanation is furnished within the time specified or if the information or explanation furnished is, in the opinion of the Registrar, inadequate, the Registrar may by another written order call on the company to produce before him for his inspection such books and papers as he considers necessary within such time as he may specify in the order; and it shall be the duty of the company, and of all persons who are officers of the company, to produce such books and papers.] (4) If the company, or any such person as is referred to in subsection (2) or (3), refuses or neglects to furnish any such information or explanation [or if the company or any such person as is referred to in sub-section (3-A) refuses or neglects to produce any such books and papers], [(a) the company and each such person shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five [thousand] rupees and in the case of a continuing offence, with an additional fine which may extend to [five hundred] rupees for every day after the first during which the offence continues; and (b) the Court trying the offence may, on the application of the Registrar and after notice to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclose the identity of his informant to the company. (8) The provisions of this section shall apply mutatis mutandis to document which a liquidator, or a foreign company within the meaning of Section 591, is required to file under this Act. 235. Investigation of the affairs of a company. ( 1) The Central Government may, where a report has been made by the Registrar under sub-section (6) of Section 234, or under subsection (7) of that section, read with sub-section (6) thereof, appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company and to report thereon in such manner as the Central Government may direct. (2) Where (a) in the case of a company having a share capital, an application has been received from not less than two hundred members or from members holding not less than one-tenth of the total voting power therein, and (b) in the case of a company having no share capital, an application has been received from not less than one-fifth of the persons on the company's register of members, the [Tribunal] may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard by order, declare that the affairs of the compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Joint Secretary to the Government of India having knowledge and experience in dealing with matters relating to corporate affairs. (4) The Central Government may appoint such experts and other officers and employees in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office as it considers necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions under this Act. (5) The terms and conditions of service of Director, experts, and other officers and employees of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall be such as may be prescribed. 37. As is manifest from a conjoint reading of Sections 211 and 212, the power of investigation which was originally exercisable by the Union Government was ultimately and in terms of Sections 211 and 212 placed in the hands of the SFIO. The SFIO is envisaged to be a body duly constituted for the purposes of carrying out investigations into the affairs of companies. Regard must be had to the fact that while the erstwhile provisions empowered the Union to investigate into the affairs of a company through investigators, the new regime saw the constitution of the SFIO and an investigation being undertaken by it in accordance with Sections 212 and 213 of the 2013 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice, it shall conduct the investigation in the manner and follow the procedure provided in this Chapter; and submit its report to the Central Government within such period as may be specified in the order. (4) The Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall cause the affairs of the company to be investigated by an Investigating Officer who shall have the power of the inspector under Section 217. (5) The company and its officers and employees, who are or have been in employment of the company shall be responsible to provide all information, explanation, documents and assistance to the Investigating Officer as he may require for conduct of the investigation. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 327 [offence covered under Section 447] of this Act shall be cognizable and no person accused of any offence under those sections shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erious Fraud Investigation Office shall submit the investigation report to the Central Government. (13) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, a copy of the investigation report may be obtained by any person concerned by making an application in this regard to the court. (14) On receipt of the investigation report, the Central Government may, after examination of the report (and after taking such legal advice, as it may think fit), direct the Serious Fraud Investigation Office to initiate prosecution against the company and its officers or employees, who are or have been in employment of the company or any other person directly or indirectly connected with the affairs of the company. [(14-A) Where the report under sub-section (11) or sub-section (12) states that fraud has taken place in a company and due to such fraud any director, key managerial personnel, other officer of the company or any other person or entity, has taken undue advantage or benefit, whether in the form of any asset, property or cash or in any other manner, the Central Government may file an application before the Tribunal for appropriate or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. It would therefore be wholly incorrect to accept the submission that an investigation by the SFIO under Section 212 or 213 of the Act could not have commenced prior to 30 January 2019. Since the SFIO itself came to be constituted only pursuant to the provisions of Section 211, the investigation by that body was in no manner trammelled or eclipsed by the continued existence of Sections 234 and 235 of the 1956 Act. 40. That then takes the Court to evaluate the submission of Mr. Chaudhari that the investigation which had commenced prior to the enforcement of Section 212 was liable to be recognized as encompassing all the group companies. We find ourselves unable to sustain even this submission for reasons which follow. 41. A close reading of the report of 24 August 2012 as well as 05 November 2012 leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the investigation stood confined to AIRL. This is evident from the unambiguous recitals appearing in the reports of the RoC as well as the ultimate order that was passed by the Union Government commencing investigation. A holistic reading of the aforesaid communications and reports leaves us in no doubt that the investigation stood confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f those having the control and management of the first mentioned company; or [(d) any person who is or has at any relevant time been the company's managing director or manager,] [the inspector shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), have power so to do and shall report on the affairs of the other body corporate or of the managing director or manager, so far as he thinks that the results of his investigation thereof are relevant to the investigation of the affairs of the first-mentioned company.] (2) In the case of any body corporate or person referred to in clause (b) (ii), (b) (iii), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1), the inspector shall not exercise his powers of investigating into, and reporting on, its or his affairs without first having obtained the prior approval of the Central Government thereto: Provided that before according approval under this sub-section, the Central Government shall give the body corporate or person a reasonable opportunity to show cause why such approval should not be accorded.] 44. However, and undisputedly no such power was exercised nor a decision taken by any of the Inspectors appointed by the Union Government to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
