Administrative law and corporate tribunals
I. Administrative Law: Overview
Administrative Law deals with the organization, powers, and duties of administrative authorities. It governs how public administration functions and ensures there is a check on arbitrary exercise of power by the executive branch of the government.
Key features:
Delegated Legislation: Rules framed by authorities under powers granted by the legislature.
Natural Justice: Principles like audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause).
Judicial Review: Courts review administrative actions for legality and constitutionality.
II. Corporate Tribunals: Overview
Corporate tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to resolve disputes and regulate compliance under corporate laws. The most significant tribunal is:
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
Established under the Companies Act, 2013.
Deals with matters such as oppression and mismanagement, merger and amalgamation, and insolvency under IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code), 2016.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)
Hears appeals from NCLT orders.
Also hears appeals from orders passed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
III. Important Case Laws (Detailed Analysis)
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969 AIR 150)
Subject: Principles of Natural Justice in Administrative Law
Facts:
The selection committee for Indian Forest Services had a member who was also a candidate.
The committee selected that member.
Held:
The Supreme Court held this violated nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause).
Administrative actions can be challenged if they violate natural justice.
Significance:
Drew a fine line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Strengthened the role of judicial review over administrative decisions.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)
Subject: Due Process and Administrative Fairness
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded "in public interest" without being given a chance to be heard.
Held:
The SC held that even administrative actions must conform to procedural due process.
Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) includes the right to travel abroad, and due process must be followed if it is curtailed.
Significance:
Reinforced that fair hearing is essential, even in executive decisions.
Administrative discretion is not absolute.
3. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Case (Ramalinga Raju Scam)
Tribunal: NCLT and later NCLAT
Facts:
Massive corporate fraud involving falsification of accounts and misrepresentation of company financials by the promoters.
SEBI intervened; Government took over management.
NCLT played a crucial role in restructuring the board.
Held:
NCLT approved government’s plan to reconstitute the board.
Emphasized that corporate tribunals can act swiftly to protect shareholders and stakeholders in case of corporate fraud.
Significance:
One of the earliest high-profile examples of NCLT's intervention.
Set a precedent for corporate governance and protection of minority shareholders.
4. Cyrus Mistry v. Tata Sons Ltd. (2021)
Tribunal: NCLT → NCLAT → Supreme Court
Facts:
Cyrus Mistry was removed as Executive Chairman of Tata Sons.
He alleged oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Held:
NCLT dismissed Mistry’s claims.
NCLAT restored Mistry as chairman.
Supreme Court reversed NCLAT's decision and upheld Tata Sons’ right to remove the chairman.
However, SC emphasized corporate governance norms.
Significance:
Landmark case on majority vs. minority rights.
Highlighted how corporate tribunals balance corporate democracy and minority protection.
5. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank (2018)
Tribunal: NCLT → Supreme Court
Subject: Corporate Insolvency under IBC, 2016
Facts:
Innoventive defaulted on loans.
ICICI Bank filed for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under IBC.
Held:
SC upheld that once default is proven, NCLT must admit the petition.
State law moratorium under Maharashtra Act could not override IBC.
Significance:
First major interpretation of IBC by the SC.
Gave clarity on admission of insolvency petitions.
Confirmed IBC’s overriding nature under Article 254.
Other Notable Mentions (Briefly)
Rajesh Goyal v. Babita Gupta (2020) – NCLT held that delay in completion of real estate projects can invoke insolvency proceedings.
Swiss Ribbons v. Union of India (2019) – SC upheld the constitutional validity of IBC.
IV. Conclusion
Administrative Law ensures that the executive does not act arbitrarily.
Corporate Tribunals like NCLT and NCLAT are crucial to India’s evolving corporate governance framework.
Cases like Maneka Gandhi and A.K. Kraipak set principles for fair administrative actions.
On the other hand, cases like Satyam, Mistry v. Tata Sons, and Innoventive Industries showcase how corporate tribunals resolve complex corporate disputes efficiently.
RELATED Blog
0 comments