SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(Cal) 187

ROXBOURGH
MRITYUNJOY CHAKRAVARTTI – Appellant
Versus
PROVAT KUMAR PAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MIHIR KUMAR SARKAR, N.K.Basu, SISIR KUMAR BASU

ROXBRUGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Rule against an order of Mr. A. Mukherjee, Magistrate, First Class, Nadia, rejecting a contention by an accused, who has been prosecuted under Section 409, Penal Code, that, as the provisions of Section 237, Companies Act, had not been observed, the complaint by the liquidator was not valid and the complaint should be dismissed.

( 2 ) THIS matter was before me on a previous occasion. A complaint had then been filed by another person, and an objection had been taken to his complaint. On that occasion I found it not necessary to pass any specific order, as it was stated that there would be no difficulty in. getting a complaint filed by the Official Liquidator of the Bank in question, namely, the Bengal Bank Ltd. , who had been appointed after the order of winding up had been passed. The present complaint, therefore, was filed by the Official Liquidator who has been given by the Court general power under Section 179, Companies Act, by an order, dated 16-1-1951. The power includes power "to institute any suit or prosecution or other legal proceeding civil or criminal in the name and on behalf of the said Bank. "

( 3 ) IT is contended that this power relat


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top