The High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an NCLT order is not maintainable. However, invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court stayed the NCLT order for six weeks to allow parties to pursue alternative remedies.
Operation of Ext.P3 order is stayed for a period of 6 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
C.S.NAIR
AGED 51 YEARS, SOPANAM,
PARAKKARA P.O, THATTAYIL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
BY ADV PRAVEEN VYASAN
RESPONDENT/S:
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
2
9 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HQ, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM 695 010 10 ADDL.MRPN MINORITY SHARE HOLDER CUSTOMERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, HAVING REGISTRATION NUMBER TVM/TV/131/2021 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT S. SUBRAMANIAN POTTI, RESIDING AT ANDOOR MADOM, KURAKKADA P.O., KIZHUVALLAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695104. (ADDITIONAL R10 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/07/2021 IN IA 2/2021 IN WPC 227/2021)
ADDL.R11 K.G.POULOSE, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O KP GEEVARGHESE, KUNNUTHUKATTIL, MANGARA P.O., WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR, KERALA 680589 ADDL.R12 SARAMMA PHILIP, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O PHILIP, KOTHAPUZHASERIL HOUSE, WADAKKANCHERRY P.O,THRISSUR, KERALA 680582 ADDL.R13 MARY JACOB, AGED 77 YEARS, W/O JACOB, UPPAZHAKKATTU HOUSE, MANKARA, ENKAKAD, THRISSUR, KERALA 680589 (ADDL.RESPONDENTS 11 TO 13 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.3/21 DDTED 24.11.21) BY ADVS. SMT.SREEKALA K.L., CGC SHRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.C.S.MANU SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY T.K.RAJESHKUMAR SRI.PRADEEP JOY
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.MANOJ.V.GEORGE FOR RESPONDENT, SRI.K.R.RANJITH, GP SRI..N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2021, THE COURT ON 29.11.21 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
W.P.(C.) No. 227 of 2021
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2021
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.
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021 4
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.
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021 5
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
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021 6
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.”
learned counsel who appeared for the contesting respondents.
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021 7
also raised various contentions to substantiate that, this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside Ext.P3 order passed by NCLT. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, if this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, the interim order already passed may be extended for a breathing time, so that the petitioner can avail the alternative remedies.
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
8
for the investors also submitted that many FIRs filed against MRPN and its directors and the CBI is also investigating the affairs of the Company. According to him, the application moved by the applicant in Company Petition No.35/2020 before the NCLT is collusive and with malafide reasons. It is also specifically stated in the written submissions submitted by Adv.Manoj that the listing, hearing and adjudication of the petition before the NCLT on scrutiny would open procedures unheard of in any legal system. The respondents in that petition who were lodged in the jail participated in a collusive litigation. It is also stated that, they planted the Business Development Manager of M/s.Mary Rani Nidhi Pvt.Ltd. as petitioner and filed the Company Petition. It is the case of the petitioner that, suppressing the attachment under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short BUDS Act) and proceedings against the Company and directors, based on the judgment delivered by this Court, the company petition is filed. The interlocutory application is moved in NCLT behind the back of the investors. It is also submitted that, when the respondents who was in judicial custody, even
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
9
without the leave or permission from the court concerned, a video conference was arranged from the jail to attend the NCLT proceedings in violation of all jail rules and obtained an interim order to handle all the cash and other assets of the Company and for the purpose of a namesake forensic audit by co-conspirators. The counsel submitted that Ext.P3 is unsustainable.
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
10
malafides alleged by the petitioner will not stand.
respondents. The following points are to be decided in this case.
Point Nos. 1 and 2
These two points are inter linked and therefore, I will consider these points together. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent Nos.2 to 8 and 11 to 13 in this writ petition are all private parties and respondent No.10 is an association. The respondent No.1
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
11
herein is the Regional Director, Southern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the 1st respondent herein is not a party in Ext P3 order. The 9th respondent is the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Trivandrum. No relief is prayed against respondent Nos.1 and 9 in this writ petition. Even NCLT is not a party in this writ petition. The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P3 order passed by the NCLT. Whether a writ petition filed under Article 226 is maintainable in such situation is considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 9.9.2020 in Writ Appeal No. 1083/2020 after considering almost all the earlier decisions on this point and held like this :
"117. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose, as envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no pleadings or materials to substantiate that the appellants are discharging public duties or public functions, and thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
12
administrative orders passed by the Courts, or the Tribunals, as the case may be, can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. Administrative orders passed by the State, authority or instrumentality of the State, can be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as they do not fall under the ambit of superintendence and control, in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. Therefore, according to me, the above writ petition is
not maintainable under Article 226 of the constitution of India
and consequently, no relief can be granted, in the light of the
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
13
above authoritative judgment of this Court.
Point No.3
The remaining question is whether this Court should pass any interim arrangement to facilitate the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 6.1.2021, a learned judge of this Court passed the following order:
“Admit. Learned CGC takes notice for R1. Notice to R2 to R8. Learned Govt.Pleader takes notice for R9. There shall be a stay of operation of Ext.P3 order.”
is in force. This Court already found that this writ petition is not maintainable because Ext.P3 order cannot be challenged invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, this Court may not be able to pass any orders invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for facilitating the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy. But I considered the grievance of the petitioner and the additional respondents who appeared through Adv.Manoj V. George. This Court, in a batch of writ
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
14
petitions, considered the “Unregulated Deposit Scheme” of Popular Group of Companies and its office bearers, directors, promoters, etc. in judgment dated 23.11.2020 in W.P. (C).No.18716 of 2020 and connected cases. After an elaborate consideration of the question in detail, this Court issued certain directions in those writ petitions. The directions issued by this Court are extracted hereunder:
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
15
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Rules of Practice, Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Rules of Practice in so far as it is applicable shall be followed in the matter of all proceedings/actions and orders that may be initiated or passed pertaining to the issues, till Rules are framed by the State Government in that behalf. The entire records together with the proceedings/actions and orders shall be forwarded to the Designated Court as soon as it is appointed/notified.
12. The above judgment was delivered by this Court on
23.11.2020. Ext.P3 order was passed on 26.11.2020. In the light of the above judgment, whether Ext.P3 order is sustainable or not, is to be decided by the authority concerned, if it is challenged. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that if this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, the interim order already passed may be extended for a short
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
16
further period so that the petitioner can avail his alternative remedy. Adv.Manoj V. George who appeared for the additional respondent Nos 11 to 13 has got serious allegations even against the procedure adopted by the NCLT. The counsel submitted that the NCLT conducted video conference of a remanded accused by a competent court, even without informing the court concerned. The petitioner and the additional respondent Nos 11 to 13 have got a case that no depositors are impleaded in the company petition and it is an order passed behind the back of depositors. The counsel who appeared for these parties submitted that the applicant before the NCLT is an accused in a criminal case registered in connection with ‘Popular Finance scam’ which is now investigated by the CBI and other authorities. This Court in the earlier case (W P (c) No.18716/2020) already directed the CBI and other authorities to conduct investigation in the matter. Moreover, this Court also observed that CBI courts (Special Court) constituted within Kerala shall hold and exercise the jurisdiction pertaining to the matters within their respective territorial jurisdiction, both civil and criminal under
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
17
the provisions of the BUDS Act, till the appointment / notification of a Designated Court by the State Government in accordance with provisions of the BUDS Act. The petitioner and the additional respondents are aggrieved parties. According to them they represent thousands of depositors. The 2nd respondent herein who filed petition before the NCLT also claims that he is also an aggrieved party. According to the petitioner and the additional respondents, Ext.P3 order is passed to take over the assets of the company which is under investigation by the CBI and other authorities. As per Ext.P3 order, an interim management committee is constituted and the committee is directed to carry out certain duties which include the financial, business, operational aspects and to take control of assets, property and bank accounts of the respondents. But this court in W P (c) No.18716/2020, directed the 'competent authority' under the BUDS Act to exercise its powers under Section 7(3) of the BUDS Act by provisionally attaching the deposits held by the deposit takers either in their name or in the name of any other person on their behalf either independently or jointly, including all the properties which are
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
18
under attachment under the provisions of KPID Act and all other assets directly or indirectly connected with the various firms run by respondent No.7 to 14 in that case either independently or jointly forthwith. Hence the sustainability of Ext P3 order in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C).No.18716 of 2020 and connected cases has to be decided by the appellate authority, if the same is challenged before the appellate Tribunal. The petitioner submitted that he intends to file an appeal. According to the petitioner and contesting respondents, it is a matter which affect about 30,000 depositors of the company. A perusal of Ext.P3 order will show that the NCLT has not considered the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No.18716 of 2020 and connected cases. In such an extra ordinary situation in which it is stated that the order will affect the interest of thousands of depositors, an extra ordinary order can be passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, according to me, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case narrated above, by invoking my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it can be ordered that Ext.P3 order should be
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
19
kept in abeyance for a period of 6 weeks so that the parties can avail their alternative remedy, if any.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
SKS JV
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2021
20
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 227/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF INVESTORS WHO HAVE FORMED THEMSELVES INTO A REGISTERED GROUP, OUT OF THE MANY THOUSANDS OF INVESTORS IN VARIOUS ENTITES OF THE HOLDING ENTITLES OF THE HOLDING ENTITY WHICH IS POPULAR FINANCE PVT LTD |
|---|---|
| Exhibit P2 | TRUE COPIES OF RECEIPTS (0159010 IN NUMBER) ISSUED BY POPULAR FINANCE PVT LTD |
| Exhibit P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-11-2020 IN I.A 178/KOB/20 IN CP 35/KOB/20 OF THE TRIBUNAL |
| RESPONDE | NT EXHIB | ITS |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | R2(A) | A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF EMPLOYEES AND MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | R2(B) | A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION, MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND LIST OF BRANCHES OF MARY RANI POPULAR NIDHI LIMITED AS APPROVED BY THE RELEVANT AUTHORITY IE., THE FIRST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | R2(C) | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPANY PETITION CP/KOB/25/2020 BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOCHI BENCH. |
| EXHIBIT | R2(D) | A COPY OF THE COMPANY PETITION IA.NO.178/2020 IN CP/KOB/35/2020 BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOCHI BENCH. |
| EXHIBIT | R2(E) | A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.NO.24535/2020. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed under Article 226 is maintainable against an order passed by the NCLT.
Whether this Court should pass an interim arrangement to facilitate the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy.
Whether the operation of the Ext.P3 order should be stayed for a specific period.
C.S.Nair
Regional Director Southern Regional, Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Pramod V
Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Pvt Ltd
Thomas Daniel
Praba Thomas
P.V.Kunhikrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
