Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rajneesh Aggarwal vs Amit J. Bhalla on 4 January, 2001
The
Co.A. 1 - 2/2011 & 28/2010 Page 16 of 30
Division Bench referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in BSI
Limited and & Anr. Vs. GIFT Holding Private Limited (2000) 2 SCC
737, Kusum Ingots & Allows Ltd. vs. Pennar Peterson Securities
Ltd.(2000) 2 SCC 745, Rajneesh Aggarwal vs. Amit J. Bhalla (2001) 1
SCC 631 and observed that the expression „proceedings‟ can be
interpreted differently depending upon the context in which it has been
used by the legislature. In the context of Section 391 and 392 of the C.
Act, it will exclude the criminal proceedings. It further observed as
under:-
Ananta Mills Ltd. (In Liquidation) vs City Deputy Collector, Ahemedabad And ... on 30 November, 1971
After reference to the provisions
and relying upon Section 511 of the C. Act, the Gujarat High Court, in
Ananta Mills Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. City Deputy Collector,
Ahmedabad and Ors [(1972) GLR 63] has held:-
Krishna Texport Industries Ltd. vs Dcm Limited on 23 May, 2008
The Division Bench in Krishna
Texport Industries (supra), after referring to several decisions of the
Supreme Court and High Courts, observed that the word „proceedings‟
used in the said section would not include „criminal proceedings‟.
Section 511 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Jik Industries Ltd. & Ors vs Amarlal V.Jumani & Anr on 1 February, 2012
21. The aforesaid view finds resonance and acceptance in the
judgment of the Supreme Court in JIK Industries Limited (supra).
During the course of arguments before us, a copy of the decision of
Bombay High Court, which was made subject matter of challenge before
the Supreme Court in the said case, was produced. The factual position
in the said case was that the scheme was approved in the meeting held
on 25th June, 2005 and was sanctioned by the Court vide order dated 16 th
September, 2005. The appointed date as stipulated was 28 th February,
2005. In the said case, prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act had
been filed in some cases after the appointed date. In fact, in some cases,
cheques were dishonoured after the said date. The scheme envisaged
issue of shares to the creditors. Identical or similar arguments were
raised but were rejected by the Bombay High Court observing that the
scheme did not have the effect of creating a new debt but it simply
makes the original debt payable in the manner and to the extent provided
in the scheme. Thus sanction of the scheme did not result in
extinguishing the debt but only curtailed the right to recover the debt in
Co.A. 1 - 2/2011 & 28/2010 Page 18 of 30
the sense that the debt would become payable only in accordance with
the sanctioned scheme. Distinction was drawn between power of the
Company Court and exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short). The effect and the
consequence once the payment was made under the Scheme and whether
in such circumstances the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act
should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was left open. It was,
however, observed that the company court cannot quash, stay or
compound the criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. The
Supreme Court in its detailed judgment held that the power of
compounding requires consent or agreement of two parties. It is
bilateral and must have an element of mutuality. It is not unilateral.
There cannot be any deemed compounding or implicit consent on the
basis that the scheme under Section 391 of the Act has been sanctioned.