P.Umashankar v. Top Thread Mills,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRL RC Nos. 1278 & 1279 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.14797 & 14799 of 2025
1. P.Umashankar Erstwhile Managing Director, M/s.M.P.Shan Tex Private Limited, Having Office at 145/A/A Parapalayam, Near Amman Koil, Mannarai Post, Tiruppur.
Petitioner(s) in both Crl.R.C.s Vs
1. Top Thread Mills, Power of Attorney Holder K.P.K.Balasubramaniyam, Aged about 54 years, S/o.K.P.Krishnan, Having Office at 35, Gajalakshmi Theatre Road, Tiruppur.
2.P.Atchuta Ramaiya Liquidator of M.P.Shan Tex Private Limited, Office of Official Liquidator, High Court of Madras, Corporate Bhawan, 2nd Floor, No.29, Rajaji
Salai, Chennai-600001.
Respondent(s) in both Crl.R.C.s PRAYER To set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.7615/2022 in CC No.83/2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court at Tiruppur.
CRL RC No. 1279 of 2025 PRAYER To set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.7612 of 2022 in C.C.No.96 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court at Tiruppur.
In both CRL RC.s For Petitioner:
Mr. R.Balaji Singh For Respondents:
Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) COMMON ORDER Challenging the impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruppur in Crl.M.P.Nos.7612 and 7615 of 2022 in C.C.Nos.96 and 83 of 2017, the petitioner/2 nd accused has preferred these Criminal Revision Cases.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner/2 nd accused would submit that before the trial court, he filed petitions in both Criminal Cases praying to implead the official liquidator as a party to represent the 1 st accused company. Since already the 1 st Accused company was wound up by the official liquidator, if any proceedings is initiated against the said company, the 1 st respondent/complainant has to proceed with 2 nd respondent/official liquidator as on date, since all the documents were taken up by official liquidator on the date of liquidation. So, he filed petitions in both the Criminal Cases to implead official liquidator as 2 nd respondent, but the learned Magistrate has allowed the said petitions filed in Crl.M.P.Nos.6653 and 6651 of 2021.
Thereafter to carry out amendment, the 1 st respondent/complainant again filed the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos. 7612 and 7615 of 2022 to implead and amend the proceeding to represent the 1 st accused company and the same were dismissed by the learned Magistrate holding that the 1 st respondent/complainant has not filed any order copy of the appointment of official liquidator and also observed that the cheques involved in the cases no way connected with official liquidator proceedings. Therefore, he is not a necessary party.
dismissed. Challenging the said findings, now the petitioner/2 nd accused preferred these Criminal Revision Cases.
3. Notice sent to respondents, in which notice sent to 1 st respondent was returned as "out of station". The learned counsel for petitioner/2 nd accused argues that the official liquidator is a necessary party to the proceedings, but it was failed to take note of by the trial court and prayed to set aside the findings of learned Magistrate and to allow these Criminal Revision Cases by raising following grounds for consideration:- (i) The trial court failed to take into account that Sec.141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act states that if the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or attributable to, any neglect on the part of director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Since the alleged offence took place after the liquidation order, Liquidator should also be made a arty to the proceedings.
(ii) The trial court has failed to consider that Sec.35(1)(k) of the IBC specifically allows the liquidator to institute or defend any suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings, civil or criminal in the namd and on behalf of the corporate debtor.
4. On perusal of records, it reveals the fact that learned Magistrate already allowed the petitions filed by the 1 st respondent/complainant in Crl.M.P.Nos.
6652 and 6649 of 2021 holding that the official liquidator is the necessary party to the proceedings. Thereafter, to implead and to follow the other consequential amendment, the 1 st respondent/complainant again filed another petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos. 7612 and 7615 of 2022 and the same was not allowed by the trial judge holding that the date of appointment of official liquidator has not been stated in the petitions nor he is necessary party to the proceedings. But already the trial judge has made an observation that the first accused company was wound up by the official liquidator through his letter dated 27.10.2013 and the subject cheques involved in these case is of the year 2015. Now, all the records pertaining to the 1 st accused company are under the hands of official liquidator. Therefore, the official liquidator is the necessary party to the proceedings.
Contradicting the same, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petitions and not permitted the 1 st respondent/complainant to implead and carry out necessary amendments as such is erroneous one and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.Nos. 7612 and 7615 of 2022 are set aside and these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. 04-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rri To The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruppur.
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
rri CRL RC Nos. 1278 & and Crl.M.P.Nos.14797 & 14799 of 2025 04-09-2025