Court allows stay of criminal proceedings for directors under Companies Act section 391(6). Balancing justice and compromise scheme.

The court held that section 391(6) of the Companies Act permits the stay of criminal proceedings. In this case involving directors of a company, the court granted a partial stay. The criminal proceedings would continue initially, but would be stayed for two years thereafter, subject to further court orders. This decision aimed to balance justice interests and facilitate the effective implementation of the compromise scheme.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the criminal proceedings can be stayed in exercise of powers under section 391(6) of the Companies Act.
2. If yes, whether this is a fit case for staying criminal proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the criminal proceedings can be stayed in exercise of powers under section 391(6) of the Companies Act:

The court examined the scope of section 391(6) of the Companies Act, which allows the court to stay the commencement or continuation of any suit or proceeding against the company. The term "proceeding" was debated, with the applicants arguing it includes criminal proceedings, while the respondent contended it only covers civil proceedings.

The court referred to the general meaning of "proceeding" and various judicial interpretations, concluding that the term is of wide import and includes criminal proceedings. The court cited the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Workmen of M/s. Bali Singh v. Management of M/s. Bali Singh, which defined "proceeding" broadly to include all forms of legal actions, whether procedural or substantive. The court also referenced sections 446 and 633 of the Companies Act, which support the inclusion of criminal proceedings under the term "proceeding."

The court disagreed with the Bombay High Court's decision in Uma Investments Pvt. Ltd., which had excluded criminal proceedings from the ambit of section 391(6). The court reasoned that the wide wording of section 391(6) allows for the stay of criminal proceedings to ensure the effective consideration and implementation of the scheme of compromise and arrangement.

2. If yes, whether this is a fit case for staying criminal proceedings:

The court then considered whether the specific criminal proceedings against the directors of Divya Vasundhara Financiers Pvt. Ltd. should be stayed. The applicants argued that staying the criminal proceedings is necessary to avoid frustrating the scheme of compromise and arrangement and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. They contended that the directors would not have agreed to the scheme without assurance that all pending civil and criminal proceedings would be stayed.

The court noted that the earlier order by B.K. Mehta J. had stayed various civil and criminal proceedings to facilitate the working of the scheme. However, the court found that this did not automatically extend to all future criminal cases. The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach, considering the potential loss of evidence and the possibility of proceedings abating due to the death of parties involved.

The court decided to grant a partial stay. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, was allowed to proceed with hearing the complaint and recording evidence. However, the proceedings would then be stayed for a period of two years, pending further orders from the court. This approach aimed to balance the interests of justice, ensuring the scheme's effective implementation while not indefinitely delaying the criminal proceedings.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that section 391(6) of the Companies Act does allow for the stay of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases. In this specific case, a partial stay was deemed appropriate to balance the interests of justice and the effective implementation of the scheme. The stay would be in effect for two years, with the possibility of extension if the scheme proceedings were not finalized by then.

---