https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101616 A winding-up proceeding against a company need not be stayed merely because a separate criminal complaint arising from the same transaction is pending against the managing director in his individual capacity. The court treated the two matters as distinct because they involved different parties, different reliefs and different causes of action: the winding-up petition concerned alleged non-payment of dues by the company, while the criminal complaint alleged fraud by the director personally. Authorities on stay of proceedings were found factually distinguishable. The request for stay was rejected, the applications were dismissed, and the company was directed to file its reply to the show-cause notice. en-us Fri, 08 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:42:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101616 A winding-up proceeding against a company need not be stayed merely because a separate criminal complaint arising from the same transaction is pending against the managing director in his individual capacity. The court treated the two matters as distinct because they involved different parties, different reliefs and different causes of action: the winding-up petition concerned alleged non-payment of dues by the company, while the criminal complaint alleged fraud by the director personally. Authorities on stay of proceedings were found factually distinguishable. The request for stay was rejected, the applications were dismissed, and the company was directed to file its reply to the show-cause notice. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101616