2004 (2) TMI 345 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Compliance with section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Issuance of proclamation and attachment of property.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

The Court examined whether it could take proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to compel the appearance of Vinay Bagla. It referred to section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, which grants the Court jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any proceeding by or against the company. Section 454(5A) allows the Court to take cognizance of an offence under section 454(5) and try it in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court concluded that it has jurisdiction to take cognizance of and try the offence under section 454(5) and can exercise relevant powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, including those to compel appearance.

2. Compliance with section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956:

The Official Liquidator filed the application under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with section 454(5A) of the Companies Act, 1956, due to non-compliance by Vinay Bagla in filing the Statement of Affairs as mandated by section 454. The Court had previously taken cognizance of this offence and issued summons and warrants, which were returned unserved with an endorsement of "absconding." The Court noted that section 454(5) prescribes punishment for non-compliance, and section 454(5A) allows the Court to take cognizance of such offences.

3. Issuance of proclamation and attachment of property:

The Court considered whether to issue a proclamation and attach Vinay Bagla's property. It reviewed the facts and circumstances, including the failure to serve warrants and the belief that Bagla was absconding. The Court referred to sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allow for proclamation and attachment if a person absconds or conceals himself to evade warrants. The Court had already recorded its satisfaction that Bagla was absconding and directed the Official Liquidator to take steps under these sections. Consequently, the Court directed the publication of a written proclamation requiring Bagla to appear before the Court and ordered the proclamation to be published in a newspaper.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to exercise powers under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to compel the appearance of Vinay Bagla. It directed the publication of a proclamation under section 82, requiring Bagla to appear before the Court, and ordered the proclamation to be published in "The Hindu" newspaper. The case was scheduled for further proceedings on 26-4-2004.