They have also filed SLPs before this Court.
Similar petitions were filed on 6.7.2009 by JIK Industries Limited and another.
Then the scheme was taken up for sanction by the Company Court.
The learned companynsel further submitted that admittedly the respondents objected to the scheme and is a dissenting creditor.
The learned companynsel for the respondents in the case of JIK Industries has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 3.10.2006 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, XII Court Bandra, Mumbai whereby the learned Magistrate passed an order on the application of the accused, the appellant, for companypounding of offences under Section 138.
The Court companysidered the objections of some of the unsecured creditors and workmen but ultimately by its judgment dated 17th November, 2005 approved the scheme with a few minor modifications.
At the time the said companypany petition was pending, a meeting was companyvened by the appellant companypany on 1.6.05 and the same was attended by several creditors including representative of the first respondents and they opposed the scheme.
Such scheme was framed pursuant to the order of the Company Court dated 5th May, 2005 which directed meeting of the different classes of creditors for companysideration of the scheme.
Despite the said opposition, the appellant s succeeded in getting the scheme approved by statutory majority as required under the law.
After the said companypany petition was filed all proceedings which were initiated by different companypanies against the appellant s came to be stayed by the High Court.
Thereafter, on 17.11.2005 another companypany petition with a fresh scheme Company petition No.
All those petitioners were dismissed by the High companyrt on 18.3.2010 in view of an order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the High Court in companynection with the petitions filed by other similarly placed companypanies JIK Industries .
In the background of the aforesaid facts the companytentions raised by the appellant companypany is that the scheme envisaged a companypromise between the companypany and the secured creditors on the one hand and its unsecured creditors on the other hand.
However, the respondents opposed the said prayer of the petitioner and by an order dated 19th January, 2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar rejected the application filed by the appellant for termination of the proceedings inter alia on the ground that the learned Magistrate has numberpower to quash or terminate the proceedings.
Pursuant to such scheme the appellant companypany filed a petition under Section 391 of the Companies Act to the High Court.
In view of the aforesaid scheme the appellant companypany filed application for companypounding under Section 147 of the N.I. Act read with Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code hereinafter, the Code and Section 391 of the Companies Act.
460 of 2005 was filed.
Thereafter, meeting was companyvened of unsecured creditors and the scheme was approved on 1st June, 2005 by the requisite majority of the shareholders and unsecured creditors.
The whole scheme was placed before the High Court and according to the appellant s , first order of the scheme came to be passed by the Honble High Court by its order dated 5th May, 2005 in Company Petition No.92 of 2005.
It was also pointed out by some of the respondents that after the High Court passed the impugned order whereby the prayer for companypounding by the appellant s was rejected and the appellant s were given an opportunity to file a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the companyplaint, some of the appellant s availing of that liberty also filed application for quashing of the proceedings.
While the Magistrate refused to quash the said proceeding then while challenging the same in the High Court the prayer for companypounding was made for the first time.
The learned companynsel for the respondents in Sharp Industries case on the other hand submitted that in the petition which was filed before the Magistrate on behalf of the Sharp Industries the prayer was only for quashing of the criminal proceedings and there was numberprayer for companypounding of the offences.
The material facts of the case are that the appellant companypany on or about 12th May, 2005 came out with a scheme by which it was agreed that the appellant companypany should be revived and thereafter payments will be made to the creditors.
However, the scheme was challenged by the appellant s in respect of certain observations made therein by the learned Company Judge and the said appeal is pending before the Bombay High companyrt.
Being aggrieved by the said order of the Magistrate, the appellants filed writ petitions before the High companyrt.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
This group of appeals were heard together as they involve companymon questions of law.
