TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: (i) Whether leave or sanction under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was required for launching or continuing criminal proceedings against the company and its directors, and whether such criminal complaint could be quashed under that provision; (ii) Whether an application under sections 446 and 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was maintainable for such relief.
Issue (i): Whether leave or sanction under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was required for launching or continuing criminal proceedings against the company and its directors, and whether such criminal complaint could be quashed under that provision.
Analysis: Section 446 was held to be an enabling provision meant to regulate civil claims against a company in winding up and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings affecting the winding up estate. The expression "suit or other legal proceeding" was construed as not extending to criminal prosecutions, and the provision was held not to prohibit proceedings against directors or officers for offences under another statute. On the facts, the complaint was founded on alleged non-compliance with orders issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and the statutory scheme under sections 45QA, 58B, 58C and 58E authorised criminal complaint and cognizance by the Magistrate.
Conclusion: No leave under section 446 was required for the criminal complaint, and the complaint was not liable to be quashed on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether an application under sections 446 and 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was maintainable for such relief.
Analysis: Rule 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was treated as exhaustive of matters to be brought by petition, and section 446 could not itself be used as an independent vehicle to seek quashing of criminal proceedings. Section 633(2) was confined to proceedings arising under the Companies Act and did not extend to liabilities or offences under other enactments. The petitioners therefore could not invoke those provisions to obtain relief against the criminal complaint.
Conclusion: The application was not maintainable under sections 446 and 633(2) read with Rule 9.
Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were held to lie outside the protective scope of section 446, section 633(2) afforded no relief against liabilities under another statute, and the petitions were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not extend to criminal proceedings, and section 633(2) cannot be invoked to obtain relief against liabilities arising under a statute other than the Companies Act, 1956.
TaxTMI 
