“Redundant Laws” by VakilNo1

Source: (http://goo.gl/e4NJqm)

There are even laws, which go against constitutional provisions.

For instance, one can prove that the economic reforms are actually against the Indian Constitution. Article 39 of the Directive Principles opposes polices that raise disparities in income and wealth. Therefore reforms, or for that matter, any policy statement, can be stayed on the ground that it’s widening the guilty between the rich and the poor.

Article 39 of the Constitution of India provides;

” Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State

The State shall in particular, direct its policy towards securing-

(a) ………

(b) ………

(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment; “

The Companies Act seemingly violates section 139 A of the Constitution, which says only the Supreme Court has the power of transfer cases.

Article 139 A of the Constitution of India provides:

” Transfer of certain cases –

(1) Where case involving the same or sub-stantially the same question of law are pending before the Supreme Court and one or more High Court or before two or more High Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or on an application made by the Attorney-General of India or by a party to any such case that such questions are substantial questions of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the case itself:

Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining the said questions of law return any case so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on such question to the High Court from which the case has been withdrawn, and the High Court shall on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment.]

(2) The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court.] “

Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 gives overriding powers to a winding up court (over any high court or the Supreme Court). It states that when a court orders the winding up of a company or appointment of a liquidator, all cases pending against the company in any court would be automatically transferred to the winding up court without the requirement of Supreme Court approval.

Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides;

” Suits stayed on winding up order

When a winding up order has been made or the Official Liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose.

(2) The Court which is winding up the company shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of-

(a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company;

(b) any claim made by or against the company(including claims by or against any of its branches in India);

(c ) any application made under section 391 by or in respect of the company;

(d) any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in course of the winding up of the company;

whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted, or is instituted, or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960 (65 of 1960).

(3) Any suit or proceeding by or against the company which is pending in any Court other than that in which the winding up of the company is proceeding may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be transferred to and disposed of by that Court.

(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall apply to any proceeding pending in appeal before the Supreme Court or a High Court.] “

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: