9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether an interpleader suit is a suit or a proceeding within the meaning of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, maintainable only with the leave of the court in which liquidation proceedings are pending. Detailed Analysis: The judgment in question revolves around the issue of whether an interpleader suit falls under the ambit of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, requiring leave from the court where liquidation proceedings are ongoing. The plaintiff filed an interpleader suit seeking resolution on conflicting claims by defendants regarding unpaid bills. Defendant No. 1, a company in liquidation, was at the center of the dispute. The plaintiff argued that section 446 did not apply as the suit did not impact the company's assets directly, thus no leave from the Bombay High Court was necessary. The court examined the provisions of section 446 of the Companies Act, which restricts legal proceedings against a company under liquidation without court permission. The plaintiff contended that as the suit did not target the company's assets, leave was unnecessary. However, the court noted that defendant No. 1 had a stake in the disputed amount through commissions, making it a matter concerning the company's interests. The court referred to the case law to establish that statutory duties, unlike personal rights, are not subject to section 446. In this case, the interpleader suit involved conflicting claims against the company, falling under the court's jurisdiction. The court further analyzed the nature of interpleader suits and their inclusion under section 446. Referring to procedural rules, the court highlighted that interpleader suits involve resolving disputes among defendants, potentially making them plaintiffs against the company. Citing precedent, the court concluded that an interpleader suit against a company in liquidation is a proceeding under section 446, necessitating court leave. As the present suit was filed post the winding-up order, the court stayed proceedings until the plaintiff obtained leave from the Bombay High Court, emphasizing compliance with section 446 requirements. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that interpleader suits involving claims against a company in liquidation fall within the purview of section 446 of the Companies Act, requiring court permission to proceed. The court directed the plaintiff to obtain leave from the Bombay High Court to continue the suit, underscoring adherence to statutory provisions for legal proceedings involving companies under liquidation.
|
