CHANDULAL CHHOTALAL SHAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) Now so far as the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, it cannot be disputed that even if alternative remedy is available, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Availing of alternative remedy is one of the factors this Court may take into account. In other words, it is a question of discretion and not of jurisdiction. In the instant case, if the petitioner has approached this Court stating therein that in 1996, he had resigned as a director and that the said fact was intimated to the Registrar of Companies, in the prescribed form and that fact is not disputed coupled with the fact that though the petitioner is held liable and was asked to pay substantial amount of more than Rs. 50 lacs along with other directors and/or the company, no notice was issued, no explanation was sought and no hearing was afforded, prima facie, in our opinion, such an action could not have been taken without complying with the provisions of the natural justice. Though it is contended that as per the guidelines then in force, there was no provisions for issuance of notice to individual directors but in our opinion, the Court will consider as to whether such guidelines even if they do not provide issuance of notices can dispense with principles of natural justice. It is well-settled law that principles of natural justice would not supplant but supplement the law of the land. Thus, in our opinion the petition deserves consideration and hence we issue Rule.

(3.) xxx xxx xxx.