Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In view of the urgency made out by the petitioner, CAN 1 of 2024 is allowed and the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

Re: WPA 12368 of 2024 Learned counsel for the respondent authorities argues that the investigation report misquoted the Section under which the investigation was ordered. It is pointed out that in the parent order dated December 10, 2028, the investigation was directed under Section 212(1), sub-Section (c) and not sub-Section (a) of the Companies Act.

Hence, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the investigation was directed not under clause (a), but under clause (c) of Section 212(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The misquoting of the said section in the report filed after investigation cannot be an appropriate aid in interpreting the parent order, which was the genesis of the investigation itself. In fact, the error in the report insofar as quotation of Section is concerned, is evident since in clause 1.3 at page 65 of the report, the investigating agency clearly refers to the parent order dated December 10, 2018 but misquotes the investigation to be directed under clause (a) whereas the parent order itself says that the direction was under