Skip to content

CS Professional · Drafting, Pleadings and Appearances · Applications, Petitions and Appeals under Companies Act, 2013

Mr Raghavan, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, is proposed as Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal, and Mr Iyer, who has been a Judicial Member of the Tribunal for five years but never a High Court Judge, is proposed as a Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal. Which is correct under section 411?

Both are eligible. A present or former Supreme Court Judge qualifies as Chairperson, and a person who is a Judicial Member of the Tribunal for five years qualifies as a Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal, even without being a High Court Judge.

  1. ABoth are ineligible
  2. BRaghavan is eligible as Chairperson, but Iyer is ineligible because only High Court Judges can be Judicial Members
  3. CRaghavan is eligible as Chairperson, and Iyer is eligible as a Judicial Member because he has been a Judicial Member of the Tribunal for five yearsCorrect
  4. DIyer is eligible but Raghavan is ineligible as Chairperson must be a High Court Chief Justice

Explanation

Section 411(1) allows a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court, or Chief Justice of a High Court, to be Chairperson. Section 411(2) allows a Judicial Member to be a person who is or has been a High Court Judge or is a Judicial Member of the Tribunal for five years. Both qualify.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Applications, Petitions and Appeals under Companies Act, 2013 shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Applications, Petitions and Appeals under Companies Act, 2013Free diagnostic mock

More Applications, Petitions and Appeals under Companies Act, 2013 questions