JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed mainly challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench (for short NCLT). When this writ petition was filed, the Registry noted a defect about the maintainability of the writ petition. This Court as per order dated 5.1.2021 directed the Registry to number the writ petition and also observed that the question of maintainability can be decided later.

2. The petitioner represents an association of persons who had deposited money in the financial establishment by name 'Popular Finance Pvt. Ltd' which had its office at Vakayar, Pathanamthitta and branches under various names and styles across the State as well as in various other cities across India. The 3rd respondent herein is one such entity and claims itself to be a Nidhi Company, which is defined under Sec. 406 of the Companies Act, 2013. Nidhi Company ultimately is a mutual benefit society which transforms into a body corporate by notification in the official gazette. The Central Government has promulgated rules for and incidental to with regard to Nidhi Companies, which are in the statute book as Nidhi Rules, 2014.

3. According to the petitioner, they are a group formed out of the many thousands of depositors in various entities of holding entity which is Popular Finance Pvt. Ltd. under whose label, deposits were solicited from the petitioner. It is also stated in the writ petition that many of the depositors and investors had individually and in groups filed writ petitions before this Court for taking action against respondent Nos.4 and 8 herein, who are the promoters/directors of the Popular Group. This Court directed Investigating agencies like SFIO and CBI to initiate appropriate investigation against them. 4. It is stated in the writ petition that, the 2nd respondent who was in charge of the accounts and audit of the Popular Group along with certain others, filed a Company Petition as CP 35/2020 before the NCLT arraying the promoters of the Popular Group as the respondents with the Director General of Police as the official respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that this is done ostensibly to take over the assets of Popular Group. The Company Petition is filed by the 2nd respondent herein. It is the case of the petitioner that he is directly involved in the day to day affairs of the Popular Group of Companies. Along with the Company application, an application was filed under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules. It is stated by the petitioner that Company Petition itself is filed without arraying any member of the depositors of the 3rd respondent – Nidhi Company. According to the petitioner, the Company Petition was designed to be considered unopposed with an intention obviously with malafides to obtain orders behind the back of the affected parties, who are the depositors and investors. Interlocutory application was filed seeking inter alia for appointment of an interim management committee consisting of independent professionals to operate as Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent-Nidhi Company. Consequently, Ext.P3 order was passed. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 order virtually handed the management of a financial institution which is under investigation for embezzlement and fraud pursuant to the orders from this Court. Hence, Ext.P3 order is challenged in this writ petition. The prayers in this writ petition are extracted hereunder :

“(i) Call for the records leading upto Ext.P3 records passed by the Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench and quash the same by way of an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction or in lieu of the same.

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent Regional Director to take appropriate action against the erring Nidhi Company for non compliance of the mandatory stipulations.

(iii) Any other writ, order or direction which the Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case And (iv) Award costs.”

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitione