1990 (12) TMI 281 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of execution petition due to bailiff's endorsement.
2. Impleading Registrar of Companies in the revision petition.
3. Violation of sections 146 and 147 of the Companies Act by the company.
4. Applicability of Section 234 of the Companies Act in recovering the decree amount.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an execution petition by the executing court based on the bailiff's report that the company's address provided did not exist. The petitioner obtained a decree in 1981 but faced issues with execution as the bailiff could not serve the notice due to the incorrect address provided. The petitioner sought relief under Order 21, rule 41, CPC to examine the director of the company for means of satisfying the decree. The court dismissed the execution petition due to the address discrepancy, leading to the challenge through the civil revision petition.

In response to the revision petition, the petitioner filed applications to implead the Registrar of Companies and sought directions for realizing the decree amount. The Registrar, in the counter-affidavit, stated that the company had filed required documents belatedly, leading to additional fees levied. The Registrar provided the correct address of the company, enabling the petitioner to proceed with execution. However, the Registrar contended that the directions sought by the petitioner exceeded the scope of the revision petition and were not feasible under the Companies Act.

The petitioner argued that the company violated sections 146 and 147 of the Companies Act by changing its address without timely notification. The counsel contended that the Registrar should take action against the company for non-compliance with the Act's provisions. The judgment highlighted that the petitioner's remedy lay in executing the decree or initiating winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act, rather than seeking fines or imprisonment against the company for violations.

Regarding the applicability of Section 234 of the Companies Act, the judgment clarified that the petitioner could not recover the decree amount from the Registrar. Section 234 allows the Registrar to seek additional information from companies based on filed documents but does not enable recovery of decree amounts. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner's recourse was to execute the decree using the correct company address provided by the Registrar or opt for winding-up proceedings as per the Companies Act. Ultimately, the civil revision petition was dismissed without costs, directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedies available in the given circumstances.