JAIPAL SINGH Vs. TANWAR FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, moved by Jaipal Singh alleging himself to be. contributory of the company because he is a depositor. The application has been moved on 30th October, 1975, and seeks to challenge a resolution of M/s. Tanwar Finance (P) Ltd., passed on 16th November. 1968, by which the company was sent into liquidation. According I to the application, it is stated that the declaration of solvency was made after the meeting and is, therefore, ineffective. The applicant wants the liquidation to be set aside although it has been proceeding under the supervision of the Court since 15th April, 1969, as per orders passed in C.P. No. 1/1969. Without going into the merits of the case and the reply filed by the Voluntary Liquidator, the question arises whether this petition is maintainable under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.

(2.) I find from the orders passed on record that this application has not been admitted, but the respondent was asked to file a reply. This happened because these proceedings were somehow filed along with .A.No.269/1973 before Shankar J. (as he then was). It was not noticed that it was a separate petition which has no connection with the main petition, C.A.269/1973. I have, teherefore, considered the question whether this application lies under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, before proceeding with it any further, I have come to the conclusion that this application does not lie under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, and I set out my reasons. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed any further with the decision of the questions raised in the application.

(3.) Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, deals with the jurisdiction of the Court for staying proceedings during the winding up proceedings and also provides in sub-sections (2) and (3) a procedure for the E decision of certain questions arising during the winding up and for the transfer of proceedings pending in other Court. It is stated in subsection