RABINDRA CHAMRIA BENU GOPAL BANGUR SHRI KUMAR BANGUR LAXMI NEW AS BANGUR MAHABIR PRASAD PODDAR Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES WEST BENGAL:REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES:REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES:REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES:REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these matters can be dealt with under a common judgment since the question which arises for consideration is the scope of Section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956.

(2.) It is enough if we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 1990. The short facts are as follows: Eastern Manufacturing Company Ltd. "(The Company" in short) is the owner of a jute mill in West Bengal. The appellants were appointed Directors between 10-4-1981 and 15-6-1984. There was a lockout in the Jute Mill On 2-6-1982. By a notification dated 26-10-1983, Government of West Bengal declared the said jute mill as a relief under taking under the provisions of West Bengal Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1972. However, on 24-11-1983, the lock'out was lifted. Thereafter the mill resumed its manufacturing operation between 16-1-1984 and 8.4.1984. There was a strike in the Jute Industry throughout West Bengal. Between 7-3-1985 and 3-8-1985 there was a lock out due to labour unrest. As a result of all these the company defaulted in the payment of the provident fund dues. On 28-1-1986, a petition was moved on behalf of the appellants under Section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) for being relieved of liability for delayed as well as nonpayment of the provident fund dues and other ancillary dues. On 21-8-1986 a consent order was passed by the learned single Judge allowing the outstanding provident fund dues to be paid in monthly instalments of Rupees 50,000/ -commencing from April, 1986, until the entire liability is paid off.

(3.) Since this course was accepted by the provident fund authorities it was not considered necessary to serve summons on the Registrar of Companies because what was sought to be recovered were the dues under the Provident Fund Act. It was further ordered concerning Prayer-B that an injunction shall issue restraining the respondents from initiating any criminal proceedings against the appellants or any of them for nonpayment or delayed payment of the provident fund.