TCI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present applicant company has taken out this Judge's summons under Rule 71 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 praying for an order under sub section (6) of section 391 of the Companies Act for stay of continuation of proceedings pending in Debt Recovery Tribunal and various courts of Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi.

(2.) MR. K. D. Garg, the Executive Director of the applicant company in the additional affidavit stated that HUDCO a secured creditor of the applicant company has initiated following proceedings against the applicant company:- (a) Original application No. 64/2004 pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal (1) Delhi, titled as HUDCO vs. TCI Finance Infrastructures Ltd. & Others. (b) Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending before Ms. Geetanjali Goyal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court New Delhi (CC No. 1028/03, R. No. 30 ). (c) Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending before Sh. Sh. Gauttam Manan, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court New Delhi (CC No. 1917/1, R. No. 5) (d) Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending before Sh. Pritam Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court New Delhi (CC No. 1925/1/04, R. No. 14 ).

(3.) GUJARAT High Court in Harish C. Raskapoor vs. Jaferbhai Mohmedbhai Chhatpar 1989 Company Cases Vol. 65 page 163 indicated that section 391 (6) of the Companies Act empowers the court where an application has been made to it for sanction of a scheme of arrangement or compromise under Section 391, to stay proceedings against the company pending final disposal of the application. The word "proceeding" in section 391 (6) is a term of wide import and includes within its sweep criminal proceeding also.