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>Court dismisses appeal against winding up order under Companies Act, 1956, upholding liability for prosecution.</h1> <h3>Dhiren Dave Versus Surat Dyes</h3> Dhiren Dave Versus Surat Dyes - [2008] 88 SCL 138 (GUJ.) Issues:1. Maintainability of the appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Jurisdiction of the Court regarding contempt proceedings and prosecution.3. Opportunity of hearing to the appellant.4. Findings and liability for prosecution by the learned Company Judge.Issue 1: Maintainability of the appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956:The appellant challenged an order directing winding up of a company after a review petition was rejected by the learned Company Judge. The appellant argued that findings against him were conclusive, making him defenseless, justifying the appeal. However, the Court found that the appeal was not maintainable under section 483 due to the nature of the findings and the direction for prosecution.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Court regarding contempt proceedings and prosecution:The Court analyzed section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that the Court can direct filing of a complaint if an offense is committed in relation to a document in the Court. The findings against the appellant were based on documents submitted by him and another individual, leading to the conclusion that the appeal challenging prosecution was not maintainable.Issue 3: Opportunity of hearing to the appellant:The Court noted that while an opportunity of hearing could have been given by the learned Company Judge, the lack of it did not warrant interference in the matter during the appeal process. The appellant's argument for challenging the findings based on lack of opportunity was not considered sufficient to maintain the appeal.Issue 4: Findings and liability for prosecution by the learned Company Judge:The learned Company Judge found the appellant and another individual liable for prosecution based on false statements and submission of false documents. The Court observed that the direction for prosecution could not be challenged in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the Civil Application.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal as it was not maintainable under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, and rejected the Civil Application, emphasizing the limitations of challenging findings and directions for prosecution during the appeal process.
TaxTMI 