Source: https://www.kopykitab.com/blog/companies-act-case-law-rohtas-industries-ltd-vs-s-d-agarwal/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:45:34+00:00

Document:
precedent to action under section.
time before, in April 1960, New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
considered in the background of the association of S. P.
formed the required opinion was conclusive.
which the company’s reputation and prospects may suffer.
the fundamental right of its shareholders under Art.
company law matters, and the standard prescribed under s.
Commissioner of Customs & Excise v. Cure and Deeley Ltd.
 1 Q. B. 340, Roncarelli v. Duplessis,.  S.C.R.
 2 All E.R. p. 546, not applicable.
(Per Bachawat, J.) : The object of investigation under s.
discertionary and no appeal is provided against an order.
India,  Supp. 3 S.C.R. 632, Hubli Electricity Co. v.
Province of Bombay, L.R. 76 I.A. 57, Ross-Clunis v.
State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy and Anr.,  S.C.R.
The learned Judge’s own observations in Barium Chemicals v.
Company Law Board,  Supp. S.C.R. 311, 343, explained.
for the respondents (in all the appeals).
as not having been made in accordance with law.
incorporated in the year 1933.
Department of Company Law Administration.
said Company and to report thereon.
Chopra of Messrs. S. P. Chopra & Co.
extended by the Central Government.
The Eleventh day of April, 1963.
said company or its members.
and observations against Shri S. P. Jain.
for misconduct in managing the affairs of M/s.
Government as on 11th April, 1963.
High Court is ,challenged in this Court.
reply affidavit within a week thereafter.
Affairs New Delhi filed his affidavit on October 4, 1968.
it possessed bearing on the subject.
Annexure ‘A’ is said to have been submitted in June, 1960.
appellant in the reply affidavit filed on its behalf. Mr.
necessary background in assessing the other allegations.
within the knowledge of the Government.
Mills Co. Ltd. is a sister concern of the appellant-company.
had a subscribed capital of rupees ten lacs made up of Rs.
Bagla & Co./Podar and Sons and to give full details thereof.
of the Stock Exchange Division of the E. A.
shares of Rs. 100 each of Albion Plywoods Ltd.
Albion Plywoods Ltd. on some of the dates in May, 1960.
either on May 6, 1960 or immediately before that date.
quotation of the ordinary share in the Albion Plywoods Ltd.
on May 6, 1960 or immediately before that date was Rs. 1 1.
Plywoods Ltd. on or immediately before May 6, 1960 was Rs.
the Regional Director supplied those information.
appellant-company or their relations. According to Mr.
companies with which Mr. S. P. Jain was connected.
the Government was competent to pass the impugned order.
affairs of the company. To find out the true scope of S.
good grounds. It is true that the investigation under s.
ordered except on satisfactory grounds.
company or towards any of its members.
Chemicals and Anr. v. Company Law Board and Anr.(1).
lant that cl. (b) of S. 237 prescribes two requirements i.e.
required opinion is conclusive of the matter.
those decisions are difficult of reconciliation.
the power conferred on the Central Government under S.
(1)  Supp. S.C.R. 31 1.
the opinion is said to have been formed had in fact existed.
opinion to be formed by the Provincial Government under s.
(2) L.R. (1948-49) 76. I.A. 57.
other provision in that Act.
to decide questions of policy.
the decision of the House of Lords in Liversidge v.
provision of law with which we are concerned.
(1)  1 K.B. 702. (3)  3 All E.R. 338.
(2)  2 All E.R. 546. (4)  3 All E.R. 388.
L. C. speaking for the House observed, in Susannah Sharp v.
the exercise of an otherwise arbitrary power.
the intended restraint is in effect nothing.
The decision of the House of Lords in Padfield and Ors. v.
(3)  1 All E.R. 694.
frustrate the object of the statute which conferred it.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v.
(1)  2, All E.R. 682.
tenor of the legislation under consideration.
not necessary to go further than Liversidge v.
pertinent to the object of the administration.
(1)  S.C.R. (Canada Law Reports) 121.
(2)  New Zealand Law Reports 996.
cannot be held to have been formed in accordance with law.
required by the company’s special resolution, see R. v.
Raja Narayanlal Bansilal v. Manak Phiroz Mistry & Anr.(3).
ss. 242, 243 and 244.
cised. There must be a real exercise of the discretion.
is not violative ,of Arts. 14 and 19.
with the order under s. 237 (b) in Barium Chemicals v.
words which have become terms of art.
The Government acting under S. 4(1)(a) revoked the licence.
(3)  ‘Supp. S.C.R. 311, 343.
(2)  Supp. 3 S.C.R. 632.
Government but an opinion subject to objective, tests.
to the argument that he had failed to comply with reg. 5.
(1)  2 All E.R. 23.
justiciable, see : Province of Bombay v. K. S. Advani(2).
given, see King Emperor v. Vimlabai(5). In Carltona Ltd. v.
decision in the absence of an allegation of bad faith.
reference of industrial disputes, see : State of Madras v.
C. p. Sarathy and another(7). Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.
immune from judicial review, see State of Bombay v. K. P.
(3)  A.C.66,77. (4)  A.C. 206.
(5) L.R. 73. I.A. 144. (6)  All E.R. 560.
(7)  S.C.R. 334, 346-47.(8)  1 S.C.R. 422.
Companies Act, 1956 the Central Government appointed Shri S.
Learned Attorney-General conceded that the affidavit of R.
5-1/2% cumulative redeemable preference shares of Rs. 100.
Co., Ltd., sold 2,000 preference shares held by it to M/s.
were effected the management of New Central Jute Mills Co.
was Rs. 14 on May 13, 1960, Rs. 15-44 on May 20, 1960, Rs.
into ordinary shares they would fetch a much higher price.
2,000 preference shares held by New Central Jute Mills Co.
order dated April 11, 1963.
the Central Government by any of its creditors or members.
shares as benamidars of M/s. Sahu Jains or their friends.
1960. It now transpires that on that date the price was Rs.
to give their explanation on the subject.
In the result, I agree to the order proposed by Hegde, J.
(1) A.I.R. 1966 Cal. 151.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.