TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Consolidated Revisional Applications: Maintainability under Article 227, Company Court's Leave, Depositors' Redressal</h1> <h3>Narendra Mohan Lakhotia Versus Pinaki Bhusan Sinha</h3> The Court consolidated revisional applications challenging orders by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, ruling that the applications were ... Winding up - Suits stayed on winding up order Issues:1. Maintainability of revisional applications under article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Jurisdiction of the Forum in a case involving a Public Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and an official liquidator.3. Impact of section 446 of the Companies Act on proceedings initiated by depositors to recover matured deposits.4. Maintainability of proceedings under Article 227 despite alternative remedies in the Consumer Protection Act.Issue 1: Maintainability of revisional applications under article 227:The judgment consolidated three revisional applications challenging orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The key argument was whether the petitions were maintainable under article 227 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of alternative remedies. The petitioner contended that the Forum acted beyond its jurisdiction, emphasizing the High Court's power under article 227 to entertain petitions against orders lacking jurisdiction. The respondent argued that the issues should have been raised before the State Forum, but the Court held that the applications under article 227 were maintainable.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Forum involving a Public Limited Company and an official liquidator:The case involved a depositor with a Public Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956, where an official liquidator had been appointed by the Company Court. The petitioner, a former Managing Director, challenged the Forum's order, alleging that the Forum exceeded its jurisdiction by enforcing a claim against the petitioner despite the winding-up order. The Court noted discrepancies in the impugned orders and highlighted the need for leave from the Company Court to enforce claims against the company.Issue 3: Impact of section 446 of the Companies Act on depositors' proceedings:The Court analyzed the impact of section 446 of the Companies Act, which stays legal proceedings upon a winding-up order. The petitioner argued that the Forum's order for refunding deposits did not fall under the Consumer Protection Act's purview and was beyond the Forum's jurisdiction. However, the Court held that despite the provisions of other Acts, depositors could approach the Forum for redressal unless a winding-up order under section 446 was in place.Issue 4: Maintainability of proceedings under Article 227 despite alternative remedies:The judgment addressed the maintainability of proceedings under Article 227, considering the alternative remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court concluded that despite the provisions of other Acts, the proceedings before the Forum were maintainable under Article 227. It emphasized that the stay of proceedings was warranted when a winding-up order was passed by the Company Court under section 446 of the Companies Act. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the proceedings under Article 227 were maintainable in the present Forum, with the order in one application governing the others.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
