Section 633 relief limited to company-law defaults; criminal forgery and cheating allegations kept the applicant outside its scope.

Relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 is confined to negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance, or breach of trust, and depends on showing honest and reasonable conduct together with circumstances making it fair to excuse the lapse. The power is discretionary and should be exercised only on admitted or patent facts that clearly support those requirements. Allegations involving forgery-related conduct and cheating under the Indian Penal Code fall outside its scope, and where the material does not permit separation of covered company-law defaults from excluded criminal allegations, relief is not appropriate. On that basis, the application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 could be granted against apprehended proceedings where the allegations included both company-law defaults and offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Relief under section 633 is confined to negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance, or breach of trust, and can be granted only where the applicant shows honest and reasonable conduct and circumstances making it fair to excuse the lapse. The power is discretionary and is meant to be exercised on admitted or patent facts that permit a clear conclusion on those requirements. Allegations of forgery-related conduct and cheating under the Indian Penal Code fall outside the scope of section 633, and when the material before the Court does not permit separation of the covered allegations from the excluded ones, interference under section 633(2) is not appropriate.

Conclusion: Relief under section 633(2) was refused, and the application failed.

---