IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
F.I. Rebello, J.
In the matter of : Firth (India) Steel Co. Ltd. (in Liqn.).
Company Application No. 446 of 1998 in Company Petition No. 220 of 1997, decided on 4-9-1998.
Advocates appeared :
S.H. Ahooja, for applicant.
S.C. Gupta, D.D.L. Present, Tushar Bhavsar i/by Ms. Nita Madhwani, for peti tioners.
Y.R. Dube, for respondent/company in Support.
COMPANIES ACT - SECTIONS 442, 446 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND AMBIT - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - WHETHER INCLUDED - HELD, NO
Fact of the Case:
The issue before the court was whether the expression 'suit or other legal proceedings' in section 446(1) and the expression 'suit or proceedings' in section 442, under Chapter II of Part VII of the Companies Act, include criminal complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the expression 'legal proceedings' or 'other legal proceedings' for the purpose of sections 442 and 446 must be read ejusdem generis with the expression 'suit' and can mean only civil proceedings which have a bearing so far as the winding up is concerned namely realisation of the assets and discharge of liabilities of the company.
Issues: Whether the expression 'suit or other legal proceedings' in section 446(1) and the expression 'suit or proceedings' in section 442, under Chapter II of Part VII of the Companies Act, include criminal complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the expression 'legal proceedings' or 'other legal proceedings' in sections 442 and 446 to mean only civil proceedings which have a bearing on the winding up of the company, such as realisation of assets and discharge of liabilities. The court reasoned that the object of sections 442 and 446 is to protect the assets of the company in winding up and to avoid expensive litigation. The court also noted that the Legislature has conferred specific powers on the Company Court to try certain criminal offences, such as those under sections 454(5), 457(1)(a), and 542, and that the Company Court does not have general jurisdiction to try criminal offences.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the company's application for permission to prosecute the respondent company and its directors in criminal cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court also rejected the company's application to stay proceedings against the company under section 442 of the Companies Act.
Company Application (Lodging) No. 621 of 1998, has been taken out in Company Petition No. 220 of 1997 under section 442(b) of the Companies Act. The applicant is the Company. Two prayers have been made therein of which one is to stay proceedings against the Company filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate's 38th Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai.
2.The applications filed in both the company petitions which are against different companies are being taken up together in view of the question of law involved. Similar questions in other petitions have also been heard and arguments in support or opposition to the points being decided here have been advanced by respective Counsel in those applications. The question of law is being decided in these two applications.
3.The question of law which arises is whether the expression 'suit or other legal proceedings' in section 446(1) and the expression 'suit or proceedings' in section 442, under Chapter II of Part VII of the Companies Act, include criminal complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
On behalf of the Companies involved, it is contended, that the expression legal proceedings or other legal proceedings should be given its widest amplitude and must therefore also include criminal proceedings. It is pointed out that if this is not so a company in winding up would be subject to criminal prosecution. This would defeat the object of sections 442 and 446 of the Companies Act. Reliance for the same has been placed on judgments of various High Courts as also on English Law as reported in 1982(1) All.E.R. 882.
On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the petitioners in these company petitions and others that the expression 'legal proceedings' or 'other legal proceedings' must be read ejusdem generis with the expression 'suit'. If so read it is pointed out, it can only refer to civil proceedings which have a direct bearing on proceedings for winding up of the company and consequently other legal proceedings must exclude criminal proceedings. Reliance has been placed on various authorities.
4.It would therefore in the first instance be necessary to consider the expressions/terminology used. Section 442 of the Companies Act uses the expression 'suit or proceedings' : Whereas section 446 of the Companies Act uses the expression 'suit or other legal proceedings'. Under section 454 sub-section (5) in the event any person, without reasonable excuse, makes default in complying with any of the requirements of the section such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment. For this purpose the Court by which the winding up order is made can take cognisance of an offence under sub-section (5-A). Therefore a specific power to entertain a criminal complaint has been conferred. Under secti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.