P S BEDI Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral). The present case somewhatbrings out how clubs which are otherwise places of recreation-and relaxation get converted into hot-beds of group rivalaries.Whether they are the result of one group or the other, monopolising their holds over the entire affairs is difficult to say.In the present case there are circumstances pointing towardsthat, though exaggeration of insignificant matters is also thereby the other side.

(2.) This petition under Section 633(2) of the CompaniesAct was moved by some members of the Managing Committeeof the Chelmsford Club in which they stated that there wereapprehensions that the Registrar of Companies was likely toprosecute them under various provisions of the Companies Actand, therefore, he should be restrained from doing so. It wasclaimed that there had been no acts of negligence, breach ofduty etc. on their part and in the circumstances they shouldnot be made to undergo the rigour of baseless prosecution. Thispetition was moved on 7-4-1983. At the same time the petitioners sent a letter to the Registrar that they had moved thispetition and as such till its disposal, the prosecution be notstarted. The Registrar, however, commenced three criminalcases against the petitioners on 13-4-1983. One has beenunder Section 209(5), the second under Section 211 and thethird under Section 217 of the Companies Act.

(3.) Notice of this petition under Section 633(2) of theCompanies Act was issued to the Registrar of Companies whoappeared on 26-5-1983 and sought some time to file a reply.In the reply which was later filed it was contended that theprosecutions had already been set into motion and, therefore,the provisions of Section 633(1) of the Companies Act cameinto operation and the Company Court could not adjudicateupon the controversies raised in the petition. Section 633(1)in this regard provides that the only court which can entertainobjections to the prosecution is the one hearing the criminal'case.