Madras High Court
Royapettah Benefit Fund Investors ... vs Reserve Bank Of India, Reg. Office At ... on 28 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)CTC338
Author: P.D. Dinakaran
Bench: P.D. Dinakaran
ORDER
1. Petitioner seeks for an issue of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to appoint a fit and proper person as custodian for taking over the management of 6th respondent and take immediate control and possession of the assets and properties, both movable and immovable and securities and pay the petitioner and other depositors their dues.
2. It is brought to my notice that several member of public have deposited their money with the respondent Nidhi, which are alleged to have been diverted by way of loans without proper security, violating relevant norms and bye-laws of the respondent Nidhi as well as several provisions of the Companies Act.
3. Since five out of seven directors of the RBF Nidhi Limited were arrested and two were absconding, necessary steps to take over the affairs of the Company in the larger interest of the depositors could not be postponed, the Company Board, the Ministry of Law, 20.1.2000, exercising its power under Section 403 of the Companies Act, constituted a Board of Directors and thus, Nidhi Limited with immediate effect therefrom. Accordingly, the respondent board is functioning and taking care of the affairs of the RBF Nidhi Limited.
4. Admittedly, the sixth respondent was appointed by the Company Law Board by exercising the statutory powers conferred on it under Section 403 of the Companies Act.
5. Without challenging the appointment of the sixth respondent, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to appoint a fit person as custodian for taking over the management of the sixth respondent, which in my considered view, is not permissible in law. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner to challenge the appointment order of the Company Law Board, if he is so advised.
6. Even though Mr. K.V. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for interim direction to direct the respondents 1 and 2 conduct special audit and investigation into the affairs of the company for the last 12 years from this date and submit report to this Hon'ble Court and interim injunction restraining the respondent company or any other person and the employees, servants and agents from transferring, selling or alienating and dealing in any manner, in any way, the assets movable and immovable, tangible and intangible rights of the respondent company or in any manner dealing with or disposing off it assets whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible assets of the company to any person or persons, such interim reliefs fall outside the scope of the main writ petition which itself is not maintainable in law for want of challenging the appointment of the sixth respondent made by the Company Law Board, and hence, the relies sought for in writ miscellaneous petitions cannot be granted.
7. Writ petition and writ miscellaneous petitions are, therefore dismissed.