TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court, as the winding-up court, had jurisdiction to entertain and try a criminal complaint filed by the official liquidator against officers of the company in liquidation.
Analysis: The relevant provisions were construed together with the scheme of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 2(11) distinguished between matters relating to a company and offences against the Act, while section 10 dealt with ordinary company jurisdiction. Section 446(2), however, was treated as a special provision conferring wide jurisdiction on the winding-up court to entertain or dispose of proceedings by or against the company. The court held that a complaint launched by the official liquidator in connection with defaults committed in the course of winding up was a proceeding sufficiently connected with the company and could be dealt with by the High Court in appropriate cases. Section 454(5A) was regarded as a special provision intended to facilitate prompt punishment in relation to statement-of-affairs defaults and was not seen as excluding the wider jurisdiction under section 446(2). The inherent powers of the High Court were also recognised as available in suitable cases to secure the ends of justice.
Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in appropriate cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
