9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1951 (7) TMI 11 - HC - Companies LawWinding up - Powers of liquidator and Prosecution of delinquent officers and members of company
Issues: Validity of complaint by liquidator under section 237 of the Indian Companies Act
In the judgment delivered by Roxburgh, J., the issue at hand was the validity of a complaint filed by the Official Liquidator under section 237 of the Indian Companies Act. The accused, prosecuted under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, contended that the complaint was not valid as section 237 provisions were not observed. The key argument was whether the power given to the Official Liquidator under section 179 of the Indian Companies Act extended to all prosecutions, including those involving officers of the bank, or if it was limited to external parties only. Roxburgh, J., analyzed the scope of powers granted to the Official Liquidator under section 179 of the Indian Companies Act. The judge highlighted that the power given to the Liquidator was broad and encompassed all prosecutions that the bank could have undertaken before winding up. The judge emphasized that the discretion to determine the extent of powers vested in the Liquidator rested with the court. If the court granted unrestricted power under section 179, the Liquidator was entitled to institute prosecutions without further court direction. The judge clarified that while there was a provision for challenging the Liquidator's actions in court, the absence of explicit limitations in sections 179 and 237(1) meant that the Liquidator's actions were not inherently illegal. Furthermore, Roxburgh, J., referenced a previous case, Emperor v. Bishan Sahai Vidyarthi, to support the interpretation of sections 237 and 179. The judge concluded that the complaint filed by the Official Liquidator was valid, and the Rule against the Magistrate's order was discharged. The judgment underscored the expansive nature of the powers conferred on the Official Liquidator under the Indian Companies Act and affirmed the legality of the complaint filed in the present case.
|
