https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111775 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as an enabling provision for regulating civil claims in winding up, not as a bar on criminal prosecutions; the expression "suit or other legal proceeding" was read as not extending to criminal complaints, so no leave was required to proceed against the company or its directors for alleged non-compliance under another statute. Section 633(2) was likewise confined to proceedings under the Companies Act and could not be used to obtain relief against liabilities arising under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Rule 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was treated as exhaustive, and the application was held not maintainable. en-us Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2014 08:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111775 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as an enabling provision for regulating civil claims in winding up, not as a bar on criminal prosecutions; the expression "suit or other legal proceeding" was read as not extending to criminal complaints, so no leave was required to proceed against the company or its directors for alleged non-compliance under another statute. Section 633(2) was likewise confined to proceedings under the Companies Act and could not be used to obtain relief against liabilities arising under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Rule 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was treated as exhaustive, and the application was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111775