LAWS(SC)-2020-2-123

USHA ANANTHASUBRAMANIAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 12, 2020
Usha Ananthasubramanian Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is by Usha Anandhasubramanian -former MD and CEO of the Punjab National Bank. She was MD and CEO of the said Bank from 14.08.2015 to 05.05.2017.

(2.) A charge sheet has been filed by the CBI against several persons occupying positions in the Punjab National Bank as well as the Directors of Gitanjali Gems Ltd.

(3.) Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, points out that the charge sheet by the CBI itself makes it clear that at the highest even the criminal case against the appellant is only that she omitted to take precautions or preventive steps to prevent the fraud perpetrated by Nirav Modi and thereby committed mis-conduct and conspiracy with the other accused persons. After pointing out the aforesaid charge sheet, Mr. Vaidyanathan then pointed out orders that were passed by the NCLT in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 241 of the Companies Act by which certain named individuals were injuncted from disposing movable and immovable properties/assets which belong to them and whose assets were frozen, making it clear that post-freeze only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month will be allowed to each of such persons for personal expenses. He further argued that in exercising powers under Section 241, powers may be exercised under various provisions of the Companies Act including Section 337 and 339 only insofar as the mis-management of that very Company is concerned, which is obviously not relatable to any other corporate body, including the Punjab National Bank, of which the appellant is the CEO and MD. According to him, therefore, any order that freezes assets of the appellant in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 241 of the Companies Act would be without jurisdiction. He read to us the relevant sections of the Companies Act and pointed out that however widely they are construed they can only be qua the Company in which acts of mis-management are alleged and not qua any other person.