Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Banking Companies Act, 1949
The Companies Act, 1956
The Gas Companies Act, 1863
The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951
Ramesh Chandra vs Chopasni Ice Aerated Water And Oil Mills ... on 21 February, 1963
11. My attention was drawn to only two cases decided under section 536(2) by the courts in India. First case on the subject is Ramesh Chandra v. Chopasni Ice, Aerated Water and Oil Mills Ltd. Considering the scope of the jurisdiction of the court under sub-section (2) of section 536, the Division Bench has in no uncertain terms observed that the situation visualised by the section does not arise before a winding-up order is passed by the court. Mr.Vakil, who strongly favoured the construction put upon the section by Buckley J., urged that the reasons given by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court for reaching this conclusion are not borne out by the language of sub- section (2). The criticism is not justified because the language of sub-section (2) and the scheme of the Act clearly indicate that, so long as the company is not ordered to be wound up by the court, the disposition of the property made by it would be prima facie valid and would only become void after the order for winding up that company is made. When a company is a going concern any disposition of property by the company would have to be made by the directors within the scope of their powers as set out in the articles of association and as are to be found in the provisions of the Companies Act. If the construction canvassed by Mr.Vakil is to be accepted, the court would be making inroads upon the powers of other directors and there is no jurisdiction for such an intrusion and that appears to be the reason which appealed to the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and which becomes manifest from the observation that the section does not contemplate any of these orders of the court about disposition of the property of the company. This decision, therefore, supports the view that no order can be made under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, in respect of disposition of property made by the company unless an order for winding up the company is made.
Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd. vs Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durgaprasad ... on 9 December, 1966
The second case on the subject is Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd. v. Shreeram Durgaprasad (Private) Ltd. Again the question of jurisdiction of the court under section 536(2) was raised before the court and the learned judge has in no uncertain terms held that the very foundation or the occasion for the court making an order referred to in sub-section (2) of section 536 is that there is a disposition of property made by the directors which has become void, and such an effect on the disposition follows upon an order of winding-up and not earlier. No doubt in reaching this conclusion the courts seems to have taken into consideration some of the peculiar facts of that case. It was however urged that the court appears to have experienced some difficulty in putting the aforementioned construction on the section which becomes clear from the observation of the court that :
1