1960 (4) TMI 16 - HC - Companies Law

Displaced person wins share conversion case under relevant Acts, highlighting legislative intent.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a displaced person seeking share conversion under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act. The judgment ... Winding up – Commencement of Issues:1. Timeliness of the petition2. Maintainability of the petition3. Conversion of shares as requested4. Validity of the bank's callAnalysis:The judgment involves an application under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act for converting shares by a petitioner who is a displaced person from West Punjab. The respondent, a banking company, was ordered to be wound up by the Reserve Bank of India. The issues raised included the timeliness of the petition, its maintainability, the entitlement of the petitioner for share conversion, and the bank's ability to make a valid call.The court first addressed the timeliness of the petition, citing relevant provisions of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act. It was held that the petitioner's application was within the prescribed period, granting him the benefit of the Act's provisions.Regarding the maintainability of the petition, the court analyzed the interaction between the Displaced Persons Act and the Companies Act. The court emphasized the distinction between the commencement of winding up proceedings and the actual process, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner's entitlement to share conversion.The court delved into the legislative intent behind the Acts, highlighting the narrow scope of the Displaced Persons Act in contrast to the Companies Act. It clarified that the provisions of the two Acts operated independently and did not conflict, ensuring the petitioner's rights under the Displaced Persons Act were upheld.Additionally, the court discussed the doctrine of 'relation back' in insolvency and company law, emphasizing its strict interpretation and inapplicability to the Displaced Persons Act. The judgment concluded by allowing the petition, directing the bank in liquidation to convert the petitioner's shares as requested, and awarding costs to the petitioner.In summary, the judgment resolved the issues in favor of the petitioner, affirming his entitlement to share conversion under the Displaced Persons Act despite the winding up of the bank. The court's analysis emphasized the distinct applicability of the Acts involved and upheld the petitioner's rights as a displaced person.