SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Bom) 249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Nitin R. Borkar, JJ.
N Sampath Ganesh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors. - Respondents
Cr. Writ Petition No. 4144, 4145, 5023, 5035, 5036, 5263 of 2019
Decided On : 21-04-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Navroz Seervai, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Mr. V.P. Singh, Mr. Aditya Jalan, Raghav Seth, Mr.Aman Sharma, Ms.Anshula L. Bakhru, Ms. Vanya Chhabra and Mr.Hursh Meghani, Mr. Samarth K. Luthre and Mr. Ayush Chaddha i/b AZB & Partners, Advocate, Mr. Darius J. Khambata, Senior Advocate i/b AZB & Partners, Advocate for Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.counsel a/w Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Sr. counsel, Mr.Pranav Badheka, Ms.Rhishika Harish, Rahul Dwarkadas, Ms. Prachi Dhanani, Ms.Rohini Jaiswal, Ms. Juhi Bahirwani i/by Veritas Legal, Mr. Robin Jaisinghani i/by Dastur Kalambi & Associates, Mr. Amit Desai, Sr. counsel & Mr. Gopalakrishna Shenoy i/b Dastur Kalambi & Associates, Adv. Aabad Ponda a/w Vikran Negi, Ekta Tyagi, Pratik Thakkar, Bhomesh & Anjali Shah i/b DSK Legal
For the Respondent:Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Animesh Bisht, Mr.Aditya Sikka, Adv. Ashish Mehta Saloni Kapadia, Ms.Drishti Das, i/b Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Shri H.S.Venegaokar a/w Sneha Prabhu and Ajay Bhise for TR.No. 2 SFIO.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 2013 - Section 140(5) and Section 212(14) - Constitutionality challenged - Writ petitions filed by statutory auditors against prosecution order and maintainability of proceedings initiated by Union of India - Court held that Section 140(5) is constitutional but disqualification under it does not amount to punishment, hence does not attract double jeopardy - Orders quashed due to lack of proper justification and application of mind by the authority while directing prosecution under Section 212(14) based on an incomplete report. (Paras 1, 164-224)

(B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 and Article 20 - Claims of discrimination between company auditors and directors rejected, maintaining that CA holds a distinct role requiring high moral standards - Debarment does not equate to punishment but serves a regulatory function to safeguard corporate affairs. (Paras 188-220)

Table of Content
1. background of the case and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. constitutionality challenge of section 140(5) (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's remarks on need for nclt proceedings (Para 9 , 10 , 14)
4. issues regarding audit findings and investigations (Para 12 , 13 , 18 , 22 , 23)
5. arguments for constitutional validity (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20)
6. implications of procedural missteps in auditor removal (Para 30 , 38 , 39 , 40)
7. final judgment and orders pronounced (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. A prayer made under S. 140(5) of the COMPANIES ACT ,2013 or 2013 Act against the statutory auditors by the Union of India through Ministry of the Corporate Affairs (MCA) in an investigation/dispute regarding constant ever-greening of debts extended to its subsidiary Companies & third parties/companies by IL & FS Financial Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as “IFIN”) and alleged dubious role played by its CAs ie company auditors before National Company Law Tribunal ie NCLT and orders passed therein, gives rise to the present bunch of petitions. Petitioners state that said S. 140(5) is unconstitutional and in any case, can not be invoked against the ex-statutory auditors. In WP 5263 of 2019, direction to lodge prosecution issued under S.212(14) of 2013 Act is questioned. Since only law points are argued, we need not refer to the facts which are not crystallized as yet.

2. In Writ petition No.4144 of 2019, petitioner is a partner of M/s. BSR and Associates which is a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) of Indian Chartered Accountants. He has questioned validity of section 140(5) of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013. He has also challenged the order dated 9/8/2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench whereby his objection to maintainability of Company Petition No. 2062 of 2019 raised by him vide Misc Application No. 2506 of 2019 has been dismissed and that company petition is held to be maintainable under section 140(5). Objection raised vide Misc Application No. 2505 of 2019 filed by M/s. BSR Associates challenging said maintainability also came to be rejected. M/s. BSR Associates has challenged it vide WP 4145 of 2019. Misc. Application No.2258 of 2019 was filed by Petitioners in WP No. 5023 of 2019 M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, another (LLP), Misc. Application No.2506 of 2019 was filed by the Chartered Accountant Sampat Ganesh, Misc. Application No. 2268 of 2019 was filed by Chartered Accountant Udayan Sen and Misc. Application No. 2270 of 2019 was filed by Chartered Accountant Kalpesh J. Mehta. All these Misc. Applications questioning the maintainability of Company Petition No. 2062 of 2019 were dismissed by common order and the company petition filed by Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs was held maintainable. The petitioners mainly stated that because of resignation tendered by the Chartered Accountants, proceedings under section 140(5) do not survive. The other persons/concerns have filed criminal petitions for challenging the rejection of preliminary objection vide WP No.4145 of 2019, WP No. 5023 of 2019, WP No.5035 of 2019, WP No. 5036 of 2019.

3. The NCLT has also passed an order on Misc. Application No. 3254 of 2019 filed in connection with Company Petition No. 2062 of 2019 under section 140(5) of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013 for appointment of statutory auditors for IL & FS Financial Services Limited (“IFIN”) under first proviso to section 140(5) of the COMPANIES ACT ,2013. This application was moved by the Union of India through its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the NCLT has found that under section 140(5) only, the Union of India is authorized to appoint or change the auditor. The auditor appointed by the Company IFIN namely Mukund M. Chitale & Co. (MMC) has been treated as appointment of statutory auditors under section 140(5) by NCLT on 18.10.2019.

4. The other order or direction challenged in this group of petitions is dated 29

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top