http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19
PETITIONER: RAJA NARAYANLAL BANSILAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT: MANECK PHIROZ MISTRY AND ANOTHER.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/1960
BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS SHAH, J.C.
CITATION: 1961 AIR 29 1961 SCR (1) 417 CITATOR INFO : R 1964 SC1552 (10) R 1967 SC 295 (10,72) RF 1969 SC 707 (42) RF 1970 SC 940 (13,14) F 1973 SC1196 (19) R 1978 SC1025 (34,35) RF 1981 SC 379 (67) D 1988 SC 113 (5)
ACT: Company-Investigation into affairs of-Inspector appointed under old Act, if can exercise powers under new Act- Constitution-Testimonial compulsion-Whether Provisions for Production of documents and evidence offend guarantee-Equal protection of the law-If provisions for investigation and Production of evidence offend guarantee-Indian Companies Act, 1913 (VII of 1913), S. 138 Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), SS. 235, 239, 240, 645 and 646, Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and 20(3).
HEADNOTE: On November 15, 1954, the Registrar wrote to the company of which the appellant was the Managing Agent under s. 137, Indian Companies Act, 1913, that it had been represented to him that the business of the company was carried on in fraud and called upon it to furnish certain information. On April 15, 1955, the Registrar made a ...