9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expressions "suit or other legal proceedings" in section 446(1) and "suit or proceedings" in section 442 of the Companies Act, 1956 include criminal complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Whether the company court has jurisdiction to stay criminal prosecutions or whether permission of the company court is required to prosecute the company for offences committed before a provisional liquidator is appointed or an order of winding up is made. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of "suit or other legal proceedings" and "suit or proceedings": The primary legal question was whether the terms "suit or other legal proceedings" in section 446(1) and "suit or proceedings" in section 442 of the Companies Act, 1956 include criminal complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court examined the terminology used in various sections of the Companies Act, such as sections 442, 446, 454, 457, 542, 621, 632, and 633. It was noted that wherever Parliament intended to confer power on the company court to try criminal offences, it did so explicitly. For example, section 457(1)(a) allows the liquidator, with court sanction, to institute or defend any suit or other legal proceedings on behalf of the company. The court emphasized that the rule of interpretation should avoid rendering any language redundant or otiose. The court concluded that the expressions "suit or other legal proceedings" and "suit or proceedings" must be read ejusdem generis with the term "suit" and should only refer to civil proceedings with a direct bearing on the winding up of the company, excluding criminal proceedings. 2. Jurisdiction of the company court over criminal prosecutions: The court analyzed the object of sections 442 and 446, which is to protect the assets of a company in winding up and avoid wasteful or expensive litigation. The court referred to various judgments, including Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. v. Sukumaran Pillai and Central Bank of India v. Elmot Engg. Co., which highlighted the purpose of these sections to expedite and simplify the winding-up process by conferring jurisdiction on the company court to handle claims against the company. The court also considered the English case of Burrows (J.) (Leeds) Ltd., which discussed the predominant purpose of staying actions against companies in liquidation to ensure the ultimate distribution of assets among creditors. However, the court distinguished this case by noting that the English court's interpretation was based on specific facts where the prosecution's object was not to enforce a claim against the company. The court concluded that the expressions "legal proceedings" or "other legal proceedings" in sections 442 and 446 do not include criminal complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized that criminal proceedings should continue independently of the winding-up process, as the company court does not have the jurisdiction to stay such prosecutions. The court highlighted that the ordinary power of a magistrate to entertain a criminal complaint is not controlled by the company court, and the prosecution of the company for offences committed before the appointment of a provisional liquidator or a winding-up order does not require the company court's permission. Judgment: 1. Company Application No. 446 of 1998 in Company Petition No. 457 of 1997 was dismissed. 2. Company Application (Lodging) No. 621 of 1998 in Company Petition No. 220 of 1997 was partly allowed, granting an additional two months to deposit the amount as ordered, while the prayer for staying proceedings was rejected. The court concluded that the expressions "legal proceedings" or "other legal proceedings" in sections 442 and 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, should be construed to mean only civil proceedings related to the winding-up process and do not include criminal complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|
