C.S. Rajan, J.—The petitioner in these applications was the Managing Director of Chandhini Chits (Pvt.) Ltd. The above Company was ordered to be wound up by this Court as per order dated 17.11.1989. According to the petitioner as Managing Director he had issued cheques to various persons and those cheques were returned by the bankers for insufficiency of funds. The payee of the cheques therefore filed complaints before the Magistrate's Courts under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter these petitions have been filed by the petitioner to stay the trial of those complaints and also to transfer those cases for trial to this court.

2. Mr. Anil Narendran, who appeared for the petitioner, strongly urged that under Section 446 of the Companies Act this Court has got jurisdiction to stay the trial of the criminal complaints and also to transfer the same to this Court. In order to understand the cope and ambit of Section 446 of the Companies Act it is advantageous to reproduse the same.

"446. Suits stayed on winding up order.

(1) When a winding up order has been made or the Official Liquidator has-been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of winding up order shall be proceed with, against the company, except by leave of the Court and subject to terms as the Court may impose.

(2) The Court which is winding up the Company shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of—

(a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company.

(b) any claim made by or against the company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India).

(c) Any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law of fact, which may relate to or arise in course of the winding up of the company.

whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted, or is instituted, or subclaim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or it made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960.

3. Any suit or proceeding by or against the company which is pending in any Court other than that in which the winding up of the company is proceeding may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be transferred to and disposed of by that Court.

4. Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall apply to any proceeding pending in appeal before the Supreme Court or a High Court."

Learned Counsel has cited the following dicision in order to impress upon this court that these criminal complaints are liable to be stayed by this Court and if necessary to be tried by this Court. (1983 (Volume 53) Company Cases 850 (Punjab and Haryana High Court,1977 (Volume 47) Company Cases 537 (Delhi High Court) and 1989 (Volume 65) Company Cases 163 (Gujarat High Court). In the Punjab and Haryana case (Khosla Fans (India) P. Ltd., In re, 1983 (53) Company Cases 858) the question was whether the compalints filed by the Official Liquidator against the company for not handing over the records and books of the company and thus violating the provisions of Section 538 of the Act are maintainable before the Company Court. An objection was taken by the company that the Company Court had no jurisdiction to try the complaint and the complaint should have been filed before the judicial First Class Magistrate's Court. Dealing with the above matter the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in suits and proceedings including criminal proceedings in appropriate cases by or against the company filed by the Official Liquidator. Therefore the question now raised in this case as to whether a complaint like the present one is to be exclusively tried by this court has never come up for decision in the a