Facts: The ROC initiated proceedings u/s 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 against HDFC Bank Ltd. based on an email and a newspaper report. The email referenced an entity called HDFC AMC IPO, not HDFC Bank Ltd., and the newspaper report concerned an offense committed by a former employee, which had already been reported and addressed by HDFC Bank. The order called for various details without specifying any allegations of fraudulent or unlawful activities, and the affidavit in reply stated that the notice was for gathering information, not establishing fraud.
Decision: The court found that the impugned order did not establish a prima facie case showing how the requested information related to fraudulent or unlawful business activities. The Registrar did not comply with the procedural requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 206 before issuing the order under subsection (4). The court quashed the impugned order, deeming it without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Facts: The ROC initiated proceedings u/s 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 against HDFC Bank Ltd. based on an email and a newspaper report. The email referenced an entity called HDFC AMC IPO, not HDFC Bank Ltd., and the newspaper report concerned an offense committed by a former employee, which had already been reported and addressed by HDFC Bank. The order called for various details without specifying any allegations of fraudulent or unlawful activities, and the affidavit in reply stated that the notice was for gathering information, not establishing fraud.
Decision: The court found that the impugned order did not establish a prima facie case showing how the requested information related to fraudulent or unlawful business activities. The Registrar did not comply with the procedural requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 206 before issuing the order under subsection (4). The court quashed the impugned order, deeming it without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Facts: The ROC initiated proceedings u/s 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 against HDFC Bank Ltd. based on an email and a newspaper report. The email referenced an entity called HDFC AMC IPO, not HDFC Bank Ltd., and the newspaper report concerned an offense committed by a former employee, which had already been reported and addressed by HDFC Bank. The order called for various details without specifying any allegations of fraudulent or unlawful activities, and the affidavit in reply stated that the notice was for gathering information, not establishing fraud.
Decision: The court found that the impugned order did not establish a prima facie case showing how the requested information related to fraudulent or unlawful business activities. The Registrar did not comply with the procedural requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 206 before issuing the order under subsection (4). The court quashed the impugned order, deeming it without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Facts: The ROC initiated proceedings u/s 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 against HDFC Bank Ltd. based on an email and a newspaper report. The email referenced an entity called HDFC AMC IPO, not HDFC Bank Ltd., and the newspaper report concerned an offense committed by a former employee, which had already been reported and addressed by HDFC Bank. The order called for various details without specifying any allegations of fraudulent or unlawful activities, and the affidavit in reply stated that the notice was for gathering information, not establishing fraud.
Decision: The court found that the impugned order did not establish a prima facie case showing how the requested information related to fraudulent or unlawful business activities. The Registrar did not comply with the procedural requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 206 before issuing the order under subsection (4). The court quashed the impugned order, deeming it without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Facts: The ROC initiated proceedings u/s 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 against HDFC Bank Ltd. based on an email and a newspaper report. The email referenced an entity called HDFC AMC IPO, not HDFC Bank Ltd., and the newspaper report concerned an offense committed by a former employee, which had already been reported and addressed by HDFC Bank. The order called for various details without specifying any allegations of fraudulent or unlawful activities, and the affidavit in reply stated that the notice was for gathering information, not establishing fraud.
Decision: The court found that the impugned order did not establish a prima facie case showing how the requested information related to fraudulent or unlawful business activities. The Registrar did not comply with the procedural requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 206 before issuing the order under subsection (4). The court quashed the impugned order, deeming it without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Facts: The ROC initiated proceedings u/s 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 against HDFC Bank Ltd. based on an email and a newspaper report. The email referenced an entity called HDFC AMC IPO, not HDFC Bank Ltd., and the newspaper report concerned an offense committed by a former employee, which had already been reported and addressed by HDFC Bank. The order called for various details without specifying any allegations of fraudulent or unlawful activities, and the affidavit in reply stated that the notice was for gathering information, not establishing fraud.
Decision: The court found that the impugned order did not establish a prima facie case showing how the requested information related to fraudulent or unlawful business activities. The Registrar did not comply with the procedural requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 206 before issuing the order under subsection (4). The court quashed the impugned order, deeming it without jurisdiction and unsustainable.