Anil Kumar Poddar vs Kedareshwar Investments and Trading Company (P.) Ltd.

S.J. Vazifdar, J.—The petitioner, who appeared in person, seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 Registrar of Companies to take steps for filing a prosecution on his behalf against respondent No. 1 for having allegedly violated the provisions of section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 3 is the Union of India. The petitioner is neither a shareholder nor a creditor of the first respondent-company. He has no connection whatsoever with the company. He, however, states that he is entitled to inspection of the documents/record referred to in section 163, including the entire Register of members since inception. Mr. Sathe, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 denied that the petitioner is entitled to the same either u/s 163 or otherwise in view of the fact that the petitioner is not concerned with the first respondent in any manner whatsoever. He also alleged that the petition is filed mala fide. The petitioner is in the habit of buying only one or just a few shares in hundreds of companies and thereafter filing proceedings against them. We do not intend expressing any views either on the legal submission or on the petitioner''s conduct and his motive behind filing this petition as we intend disposing off this petition on another ground.

The petitioner had filed an application before the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as "CLB") alleging that the first respondent had violated the provisions of section 163 as it had refused to grant him inspection of the Register of members and annual returns as demanded by him. The petitioner had earlier, by his e-mail dated 14th June, 2012, requested the company to grant him inspection of the Register of members and annual returns for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. On 27th June, 2012, the first respondent granted him inspection of the same. Thereafter, the petitioner by a further e-mail dated 3rd July, 2012, demanded the full copy of the Register of members and a copy of the annual return for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The first respondent, under cover of a letter dated 12th July, 2012, forwarded a copy of the Register of members as on 30th June, 2012 and a copy of the annual returns for the said years. The petitioner, however, contended that the inspection was incomplete as the first respondent had failed to give him the full Register of members from the date of incorporation of the first respondent to date. The first respondent, by its letter dated 10th September, 2012, rejected the petitioner''s request to provide the full copy of the Register of members stating that he was not entitled to the same.

The petitioner, accordingly, by an e-mail dated 22nd February, 2013, complained to the Registrar of Companies-respondent No. 2 and requested him to prosecute the first respondent and it''s Directors on his behalf.

The petitioner thereafter filed an application u/s 163 of the Companies Act before the CLB, Western Region Bench of Maharashtra. Before the CLB, the petitioner sought an order directing the first respondent to furnish the copy of its statutory Register and records.

The petitioner also filed the present petition, directing respondent No. 2 to prosecute on his behalf, the first respondent for the alleged violation of section 163. When the matter appeared before another Division Bench to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) was a party, the parties stated that the arguments before the CLB had concluded and that the orders were awaited. The same was recorded by an order dated 19th June, 2013. The order also records that the petitioner had made an application to the CLB stating that it did not wish to press the same. This, however, was after the entire matter had been argued before the CLB. The order recorded that it was for the CLB to decide whether or not the application ought to be withdrawn at this stage.

We are now informed that the CLB passed the following order. "CP is not pressed. Disposed off as withdrawn. No order as to costs." The petitioner states that he withdrew the application before the CLB as the importance of the documents and the information did not survive now and that even if the matter were to be decided, the information he had earlier sought had lost all meaning. His application, therefore, stated that he was not pressing the same.

We are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. The petitioner had sought inspection of the documents before the CLB. The parties had argued the entire matter before the CLB. The CLB reserved its orders. The petitioner has furnished no details on affidavit as to why he chose to abandon that application. He tendered in this Court a copy of the application in this regard before the CLB. The same, however, does not contain any particulars as to why the documents were of no importance any longer. Had the CLB decided the matter one way or the other, it may have had a bearing on the result of this Writ Petition. As a result of the petitioner having abandoned the proceedings before the CLB, he now wishes to and indeed would have to re-argue even the question as to whether he was entitled to inspection u/s 163. We are left with the feeling that is an attempt at forum shopping.

We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. It is, however, clarified that this order will not preclude respondent No. 2 - Registrar of Companies from taking action u/s 621 of the Companies Act or under any other provision, in accordance with law, if he so deems it necessary. That issue is left open. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.