DEVASSY Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these applications was the Managing Director of Chandini Chits (Pvt.) Ltd. The above company was ordered to be wound up by this court as per order dated 17.11.1989. According to the petitioner as Managing Director he had issued cheques to various persons and those cheques were returned by the bankers for insufficiency of funds. The payees of the cheques therefore, filed complaints before the Magistrate's Court under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter these petitions have been filed by the petitioner to stay the trial of these complaints and also to transfer those cases for trial to this court.

(2.) Sri. Anil Narendran, who appeared for the petitioner, strongly urged that under S.446 of the Companies Act this Court has got jurisdiction to stay the trial of the criminal complaints and also to transfer the same to this Court. In order to understand the scope and ambit Of S.446 of the Companies Act it is advantageous to reproduce the same.

(3.) In the Delhi High Court case, (Official Liquidator v. R.S. Abrol, 1997 (47) Company Cases 537), the Official Liquidator filed a criminal complaint in the High Court against its Director and officials under S.538 and 541 of the Companies Act on account of failure to hand over books of account and records of the company. The High Court of Delhi was of the opinion that the High Court's jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences was restricted to that contained in S.453(5 A) of the Companies Act and the High Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any other offences such as the offences under S.538 or S.541. The High Court also observed that it had power under S.446(3) to transfer a pending complaint before the Magistrate for trial to itself. Thus, the Delhi High Court was mainly considering whether the High Court has got any original jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence and to try the same. Therefore, I do not think the above ruling is also helpful to the petitioner.