9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p under section 433( e ) and ( f ) of the Companies Act, 1956. Since the relevant facts involved in all the cases are similar and a common question of law arises in all the cases, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this order. It is sufficient to set out the facts from one of these petitions in this batch. Facts in Crl. M. (M) No. 3444/99 are the following: M/s. Sakura Seimitsu (India) Ltd. is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner was the managing director of the said company. Mr. M.L. Gupta, chairman of the said company issued the following post-dated cheques in favour of respondent No. 2. Cheque No. Date Amount (Rs.) 4460 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawer company and its director is mis conceived and should be quashed. He submitted that the expression "in the case of a winding up by the court" employed in section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, does not mean that the said section is to come into force only after a winding up order is passed. According to him, the said expression must be read in the light of section 441(2) and, therefore, once a petition for winding up is filed, section 536(2) comes into operation and there can be no transfer or disposition of properties. He submitted that even if any transfer takes place, such transfer would be void. He further submitted that in such a situation the company and its director would be entitled not to make payment because if such pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though it relates back, would have no effect on the offence which is already deemed to be committed. It needs to be highlighted that the offending cheques were issued between April 19, 1997 and September 19, 1997. The petition for winding up of the company was filed on March 18, 1997, and the winding up order was passed on November 23, 1998, by the company court. The demand notice was issued on October 18, 1997. Thus, till the end of the period of 15 days there has been no order of winding up. That being so, the question for consideration is whether merely by reason of a winding up petition being presented there was a bar or legal disability in making payment by the company and its director. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
