High CourtsSingle Bench(2000) 06 MAD CK 0027

Royapettah Benefit Fund Investors Grievance Consortium vs Reserve Bank of India, Reg. Office at Rajaji Salai Chennai-1 and 18 others

Madras High Court · Decided on 28 June 2000 · Citation: (2000) 3 CTC 338

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.D. Dinakaran, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 7318 of 2000 and W.M.P. No''s. 10852 and 10853 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 477 words
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 u/s 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 u/s 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.