Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a petition under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 is maintainable once criminal proceedings for the alleged default have already commenced before the magistrate.
Analysis: Section 633(1) empowers the court trying the proceeding to relieve an officer from liability if the statutory requirements of honesty, reasonableness, and fairness are satisfied. Section 633(2) is available only where the officer has reason to apprehend that a proceeding will or might be brought against him. Once a complaint has been filed and process has been issued, the proceeding has already commenced, and the High Court's jurisdiction under section 633(2) is no longer available. Any objection based on alleged delay in filing the complaint does not alter the fact that proceedings were already pending, and the officers retain the remedy of seeking relief before the magistrate under section 633(1).
Conclusion: The petition under section 633(2) was not maintainable after initiation of proceedings before the magistrate and the issue was decided against the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: Relief under section 633(2) is confined to cases of apprehended proceedings, and once prosecution has commenced the proper forum for seeking relief is the court seized of the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's power under section 633(2) can be invoked only before proceedings commence; after complaint and process, relief must be sought under section 633(1) in the court conducting the prosecution.