1. This common order governs identical CA Nos. 339/2011 and 484/2010filed by the respondent-company in CP No. 3/2010 and 4/2010, respectively.

2. Both CP Nos. 3/2010 and 4/2010 have been filed before the PrincipalBench, Company Law Board (?CLB?) under section 247 along with section 237(b) ofthe Companies Act, 1956 (?the Act?).

3. The registered office of the company, i.e., Uniworth TextilesLtd. (CP No. 3) is situated at Calcutta (West Bengal) while the registeredoffice of the company, i.e., Indoworth India Ltd. (CP No. 4/2010) issituated in Nagpur (Maharashtra).

4. It is not in dispute that if both CP Nos. 3 and 4 were stand alonepetitions under section 237-B the territorial jurisdiction to hear CP Nos. 3and 4 under the distribution of work order would have been with the EasternBench, Kolkata and the Western Bench, Mumbai, respectively.

5. The only premise on which CA Nos. 484 and CA No. 339 have been arguedbefore me by both counsel appearing for the company is that the words ?in thecourse of any proceedings before it? appearing in section 247(1A) of the Actshould be interpreted as ?in the course of any proceedings other than undersection 247(1A)?. In other words according to the respondent a stand aloneapplication under section 247(1A) does not lie before the CLB. It was arguedthat even if the Bench having jurisdiction to hear a petition under section237(b) arrived at a conclusion that an investigation as contemplated by section247(1A) should be ordered it would have to refer such petition to the PrincipalBench of the CLB which alone has, under the distribution of work order,jurisdiction to pass an order under section 247(1A). Reliance was placed on BirlaCorporation Ltd. v. East India Investment Co. Ltd. [2006] 71 CLA 181(Cal.)/[2006] 133 Comp Cas 515 ; Alaknanda Manufacturing v. BahubaliServices [1994] 13 CLA 41 (CLB)/[1996] 86 Comp Cas 291; Mirza Mohd.Afzal Beg v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1960 J&K 1/1960 Crl.LJ 62 and K U Kulkarni v. Ganpat Hiraji Tell AIR 1942 Bom.191/[1942] 44 Bom. LR 264.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner argued thatsection 247 is an enabling provision conferring inquisitorial powers on the CLBto act in public interest and should not be construed narrowly and pedanticallyand the overall endeavour of the Legislature is to confer powers of enquiry onthe CLB to pass orders to protect status quo in the course of enquiry.An independent enquiry power has been conferred on the CLB on relevant factsbeing brought to its notice by a complainant. The provisions of section 247(1A)should not be read restrictively as the section does not provide thecircumstances in which the CLB might pass orders for investigation into theaffairs of the company. The legislative intent appears to be to create a quasijudicial forum which could hear complaints which might alert them againstcovert changes in beneficial interest and to equip such authority with inquisitorialpowers so that public interest is not put into jeopardy. Reliance was placed onBakhtawar Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Blossom Breweries Ltd. [1998]32 CLA 267 (Bom.)/[1999] 95 Comp Cas 28 and Padma Taparia v. AssamBrook Ltd. [1996] 21 CLA 339 (CLB)/[1996] INDLAW CLB 9.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for theparties and perused the case law cited. Section 247(1A) was inserted by theamending Act No. 31 of 1998 with effect from 31st May, 1991 and reads as under:-

?247. Investigation of ownership ofcompany. -.... (1A) Without prejudice to its powers under this section, theCentral Government shall appoint one or more Inspectors under sub-section (1),if the CLB in the course of any proceedings before it, declares by an orderthat the affairs of the company ought to be investigated as regards themembership of the company and other matters relating to the company, for thepurposes of determining the true persons -

? (a)? who are or havebeen financially interested in the success or failure, whether real orapparent, of the com