The CLB, while dismissing the petition, has noted that Bhargava was already facing criminal proceedings on the same charges as those filed before it. Most of these criminal proceedings were initiated as early as 1992. The bench has also refrained from recording the merits of the case.

The petition was filed by the Department of Company Affairs (DCA) on behalf of the government in December, 1996 alleging Bhargava was guilty of fraud, persistent negligence and default in carrying out his obligations and functions under the law.

The government had requested the CLB to inquire whether Bhargava was fit and proper person to hold the office of director or any other office connected with the conduct and management of the company.

In an order signed on Tuesday, Company Law Board chairmanPK Majumdar and vice chairman S Balasubramanium has noted that there was gross delay on the part of the government in forming an opinion of Bhargava's conduct and making the reference to the bench.

``All the acts complained of were well within the knowledge of the government and even first information report in all cases and chargesheets in some of the cases were filed long before the presentation of this petition in December, 1996. There is no explanation as to why government chose to wait till December, 1996,'' the principal bench noted in its order.

Most of the acts complained of had taken place during 1983-84 and 1991-92, prior to Suzuki becoming an equal partner in the joint venture.

The bench pointed out that it could have admitted plea of the petitioner if the government had come to know the incidents referred in the petition belatedly. The bench noted that it was clear from the narration of the incidents by the petitioner's advocates that ``the government was all along in the knowledge of theallegations not only in the capacity of a shareholder but also as sovereign government''.

The principal bench also wondered why the government had not moved the CLB earlier considering it was an active participant in the conducting and managing the affairs of the company, if the said petition had been moved in public interest.

The bench also stated that the government has not explained why the current proceeding was moved under section 388B of the Companies Act when Bhargava was due to retire in a few months. Bhargava retired from the company in August, 1997.

Had the Company Law Board passed an order against Bhargava, he could have been barred from holding any position as director in any company.