RAJA NARAYANLAL BANSILAL versus MANECK PHJHOZ MISTHY AND ANOTHER.

RAJA NARAYANLAL BANSILAL versus MANECK PHJHOZ MISTHY AND ANOTHER.

The Inspector's appointment continued under the Companies Act, 1956, by virtue of s.645, allowing exercise of powers under s.240. The investigation under s.240 did not amount to testimonial compulsion violating Article 20(3) since no formal accusation or prosecution existed. The powers under ss.239 and 240 did not...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Raja Narayanlal Bansilal; Respondent: Maneck Phiroz Mistry; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 August 1960
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree Dated September 3, 1958, of the Former Bombay High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Investigation Under Companies Act, Testimonial Compulsion, Equal Protection, Production of Documents and Evidence
Company Law Constitutional Law Investigation Under Companies Act Testimonial Compulsion Equal Protection Production of Documents and Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raja Narayanlal Bansilal

Appellant

Maneck Phiroz Mistry

Respondent

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree Dated September 3, 1958, of the Former Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an inspector appointed under the old Companies Act can exercise powers under the new Act
  2. 2 Whether s.240 of the Companies Act, 1956, relating to production of documents and evidence, offends Article 20(3) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether ss.239 and 240 of the Companies Act, 1956, violate Article 14 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's appointment continued under the Companies Act, 1956, by virtue of s.645, allowing exercise of powers under s.240. The investigation under s.240 did not amount to testimonial compulsion violating Article 20(3) since no formal accusation or prosecution existed. The powers under ss.239 and 240 did not violate Article 14, as managers and companies constitute a distinct class justified by a rational relation to the legislative object.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs awarded; appeal fails.