HIMACHAL GRAMIN SANCHAYKA LTD. Vs. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the application filed on behalf of the petitioner - Himachal Grameen Sanchayaka Ltd. for staying the proceedings before this commission in these matters. It has been stated in the application that the Reserve Bank of India has filed a Company Petition under Section 45 M.C. of the Reserve Bank of India Act read with Section 443 of the Companies Act for winding up of the Petitioner -Company before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, being Company Petition No.6 of 2001. Alongwith that petition, an application under Section 450 of the Company Judge by his order Of even date allowed that application and has appointed an official Liquidator attached to the High Court, with all such power as Provisional Liquidator of the Petitioner - Company with a direction to immediately take charge of the Companys Property, assets, books of accounts and other relevant papers and documents. Copy of that order is attached as Annexure -PA with the application. Against the said order dated 3.9.2001,the Petitioner -Company has filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which is sub judice. In that appeal, there is an application for stay in which an interim order to the effect of status quo has been passed by the Division Bench. Copy of that order is Annexure -PB with the present application. In view of these facts, the aforementioned prayer for staying further proceeding before this Commission in these Bunch matters has been made. The application is duty supported by the affidavit of S.P. Saklani, who is the Managing Director of the said Petitioner - Company.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for one of the non -applicants/respondents alongwith the learned Counsel for the auction purchaser. At the outset, our attention has been drawn to a decision of the National Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Ravikant and another V. Mrs. Veena Bhatnagar and others (First Appeal No.666 of 1993 decided on 8th December, 1995). It has been categorically laid down therein that where it is alleged that a company is in the process of liquidation and that consequently all proceedings are liable to be stayed against the company by virtue of the provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act, proceedings before the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission could continue inspite of the fact that the provisional Liquidator has been appointed As per the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the National Commission, notwithstanding the appointment of the provisional Liquidator by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the present case, the present proceedings before this commission can continue under the consumer protection Act, 1986, inasmuch as the scope and jurisdiction of this commission under the said Act is independent of the provisions of Section 446 of the companies Act which do not and cannot have an ever -riding effect on the proceedings in the present case before this commission.

(3.) In view of what has been stated and discussed above, there is no merit in the present application for staying the proceedings in these Bunch matters by us. The application is consequently dismissed.