9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to stay trial of criminal complaints and transfer them. 2. Interpretation of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases. 4. Consideration of criminal proceedings against company directors. 5. Purpose of Section 446 in avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a managing director of a company under liquidation, sought to stay the trial and transfer of criminal complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The main contention was the jurisdiction of the Court to intervene in such cases and transfer them to the Company Court. 2. The interpretation of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was crucial in determining the Court's powers. Section 446 provides that no legal proceeding shall be commenced against the company after a winding-up order without the Court's permission. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain suits, claims, applications, and questions related to the winding up process. 3. Previous judgments like Khosla Fans (India) (P.) Ltd., In re, Official Liquidator, R.C. Abrol & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. R.C. Abrol, and Harish C. Raskapoor v. Jaferbhai Mohmedbhai Chhatpar were cited to support the petitioner's argument. However, these cases dealt with different aspects of company liquidation and criminal complaints, providing limited relevance to the current situation. 4. The Court considered the implications of criminal proceedings against company directors, emphasizing that the nature of the action must be against the company's assets. The purpose of Section 446 is to prevent multiple proceedings against the company and ensure equitable distribution of assets to creditors. 5. Referring to a previous ruling in B.V. John v. Coir Yarn & Textiles Ltd., the Court highlighted that legal proceedings under Section 446 must be related to actions against the company's property. The Court's role is to protect the interests of creditors and members during the liquidation process. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petitioner's requests, stating that the special provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding cheques would prevail over the general provisions of the Companies Act. The Magistrates' Courts were directed to proceed with the complaints promptly to ensure a fair resolution for all parties involved.
|
