Govindankutty.N vs Union Of India

N. Nagaresh, J

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to direct the 3rd respondent to redress the grievance of the petitioner and to remove his name, whether it be as a promoter or subscriber or any other position from the rolls of the companies under the title, namely Chirayath Benefit Fund Nidhi Limited, Thirza Benefit Fund Nidhi Limitd, Thaiparambil Benefit Fund Nidhi Limited and Ollukkara Benefit Fund Nidhi Limited, which are registered under the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has also sought for certain incidental reliefs.

The petitioner would state that he is a senior citizen retired from service. A person named Biju Raphel made fraudulent documents and fraudulent digital signature and rubber stamp of the petitioner and by misusing the same the petitioner was made a Member and thereafter a Director of the said Nidhi Companies. The petitioner is not, in fact, the Director of the Companies. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to look into the matter and take necessary action.

The learned Central Government Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3 filed a statement. The respondents submitted that Exts.P12, P17 and P18 are representations seeking removal of the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the Company. Under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy to approach the National Company Law Tribunal. Any person aggrieved by inclusion of his name in Register of the Company can file an appeal before the Tribunal for rectification of the Register. Since the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy, the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked, contended the learned Central Government Counsel.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel representing the respondents.

The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been enrolled as Member/Director in certain Companies incorporated under the Companies Act. Such making of the petitioner as Member and as a Director, is without the knowledge of the petitioner and it is an act of fraud and misrepresentation. In the circumstances, this Court has ample jurisdiction to intervene in the matter and give relief to the petitioner. However, as per Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, if the name of any person is, without sufficient cause, entered in the Register of Members of a Company, such person may appeal to the Tribunal specified by the Central Government Notification. Section 59(1) contemplates the very situation where the petitioner is now in. As the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy, this Court do not propose to go into the merits of the case.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without granting any relief to the petitioner but, at the same time, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Forum for redressal of his grievances.