9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Winding up of a company by BIFR and appointment of Official Liquidator. 2. Complaints u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against Managing Director of the company. 3. Quashing of complaints on the ground of freezing of company's assets. Issue 1: Winding up of the company by BIFR The petitioner, Managing Director of a company, was directed by BIFR to work out a rehabilitation scheme. Subsequently, BIFR recommended winding up of the company, leading to a court order for winding up and appointment of Official Liquidator to take over company's assets. Issue 2: Complaints u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Respondent filed complaints u/s 138 against the petitioner for dishonored cheques. Petitioner sought quashing of complaints, arguing that freezing of company's assets prevented payment, completing the offense only after the freeze was in place. Issue 3: Quashing of complaints The court analyzed the essential elements of the offense u/s 138, emphasizing the need for dishonor and non-payment within 15 days of notice. It was established that due to the asset freeze by BIFR, the company couldn't make payments, thus not committing an offense. Citing previous judgments, the court quashed the complaints, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court and previous decisions of the High Court. This judgment by the Delhi High Court addressed the winding up of a company by BIFR, complaints u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the Managing Director, and the subsequent quashing of complaints due to the freezing of company assets by BIFR. The court's decision was based on legal principles and established precedents, ensuring justice in the context of the company's financial constraints and legal obligations.
|
