- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2770 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2770 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2770 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Sunil Ranchorlal Bajaj and another ...Respondents 2.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2771 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2771 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2771 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Paresh Kapadi and another ...Respondents 3.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2781 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2781 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2781 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Amarlal V.Jumani and another ...Respondents 4.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2782 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2782 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2782 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Phuli M. Jumani and another ...Respondents 5.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2783 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2783 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2783 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Anil. P. Asudani and another ...Respondents 6.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2784 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2784 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2784 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Rinku A.Hinduja and another ...Respondents 7.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2786 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2786 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2786 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Renuka P.Asudani and another ...Respondents 8.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2787 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2787 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2787 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Shyam N. Raheja and another ...Respondents - 2 - 9.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2788 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2788 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2788 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Vishal A.Hinduja and another ...Respondents 10.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2789 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2789 OF 2006, WRIT PETITION NO.2789 OF 2006, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Anilkumar C.Hinduja and another ...Respondents 11.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.288 OF 2007, WRIT PETITION NO.288 OF 2007, WRIT PETITION NO.288 OF 2007, JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Abhaykumar Worah and another ...Respondents 12.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.290 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.290 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.290 OF 2007 JIK Industries Ltd. and another ...Petitioners vs. Mahendrakumar J.Shah and another ...Respondents Mr.Amit Desai, with Ms Mili Thakkar and Ms Shital Thakkar i/b Shri Amit P. Ghag for the petitioners Mr.M.S.Mohite with Mr.A.R.Kapadnis and Mr.Ashish Sawant for Respondent No.1 in W.P.Nos.2770/2006, 2771/2006,2781 to 2784/2006, 2786 to 2789/2006 Mr.Dharmendra Rohra and Mr.Ashok Sahani for Respondent No.1 in W.P.Nos.288 of 2007 Mr.M.D.Mati for Respondent No.1 in W.P.No.290/2007 Ms P.P.Shinde A.P.P. for State AND AND AND 1.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.710 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.710 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.710 OF 2008, Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. D.I.C.India.Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents 2.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.711 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.711 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.711 OF 2008, Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. D.I.C.India Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents 3.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.712 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.712 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.712 OF 2008, - 3 - Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. D.I.C.India Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents 4.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.713 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.713 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.713 OF 2008, Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. D.I.C.India Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents 5.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.714 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.714 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.714 OF 2008, Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents 6.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.715 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.715 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.715 OF 2008, Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents 7.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.716 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.716 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.716 OF 2008, Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents 8.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.717 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.717 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.717 OF 2008, Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents 9.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2008, Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents 10.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.719 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.719 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.719 OF 2008 - 4 - Sharp Industries Ltd. and others ...Petitioners vs. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.& anr. ...Respondents Mr.S.V.Marwadi and Mr.Sushant S. Murthy for the petitioners in W.P.No.710/2008 to 719/2008 Mr.P.O.Verghese i/b Mr.K.Balkrishnan for Respondent No.1 in W.P.NO.710/2008 to 713/2008 Mr.Darius Khambatta, Senior counsel with Mr.Arif Doctor i/b Ms Hina G. Acharya for Respondent No.in W.P.No.714/2008 to 719/2008 Mr.D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for State. AND AND AND 1.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1424 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1424 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1424 OF 2008, 2.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1425 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1425 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1425 OF 2008, 3.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1426 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1426 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1426 OF 2008, 4.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1427 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1427 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1427 OF 2008, 5.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1428 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1428 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1428 OF 2008, 6.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1429 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1429 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1429 OF 2008, 7.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2008, 8.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1431 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1431 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1431 OF 2008, 9.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1432 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1432 OF 2008, WRIT PETITION NO.1432 OF 2008, 10.CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1433 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1433 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1433 OF 2008 Sharp Industries Ltd. & anr. ...Petitioners (in all the petitions) vs. Henkel Cac Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents (in all the petitions) Mr.S.V.Marwadi with Ms Sunita Sharma for the petitioner in W.P.No.1424/2008 to 1433/2008 Mr.R.Satyanarayanan with Mr.Ravindra Sharma for Respondent No.1 Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 14,21,22,25 & 26,2008 : AUGUST 14,21,22,25 & 26,2008 : AUGUST 14,21,22,25 & 26,2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the - 5 - parties were heard earlier. These Petitions are being disposed of by a common judgement as following issues are involved in all these Petitions. . (1) Whether a compromise or arrangement sanctioned under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1956’) relating to the accused company amounts to compounding of the offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ’the said Act of 1881’)? . (2) What is the effect of an order of sanction of compromise or arrangement under section 391 of the said Act of 1956 in relation to the accused company on a pending complaint alleging commission of offences under section 138 read with section 141 of the said Act, 1881 against the company and its directors ? FACTS OF THE CASES 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have made submissions on the aforesaid issues. Shri Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2770/2006 has made elaborate submissions. The other learned Counsel appearing in the connected matters have also made elaborate submissions. Before referring to the - 6 - submissions, it will be necessary to briefly refer to the facts of the case. 3. In so far as Criminal Writ Petition Nos.2770 to 2771, 2781 to 2789 of 2006, 288 and 289 of 2007 are concerned, the facts can be summarised as follows :- . (a) In these Writ Petitions, the first Respondent is the Complainant who filed separate complaints under section 138 read with section 141 of the said Act of 1881. The Petitioners are the accused in the said complaints filed by the first Respondent. The first Petitioner (first accused) is a Company registered under the said Act of 1956. The first Petitioner-company had issued a cheque in favour of the 1st respondent towards repayment of a loan advanced by the 1st respondent to the 1st petitioner. The said cheque was dishonoured. . (b) The first Petitioner filed a Company Application in this Court alongwith a scheme of arrangement. In the said Company Application, an order was passed by this Court on 6th May 2005 directing the first Petitioner Company to hold a meeting of the equity share holders, unsecured creditors, fixed deposit holders, etc. Accordingly, a meeting was held on 25th June 2005. A report of the meeting was submitted to this Court. On the basis of the report, a Company Petition - 7 - under section 391 of the said Act of 1956 was filed and by order dated 16th September 2005, the scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by this Court. . (c) According to the case of the Petitioners, as per the scheme of arrangement approved by this Court, the first Petitioner was required to issue its equity share shares to all its un-secured creditors, fixed deposit holders, etc. as against its liability as existing on 28th February 2005. On the basis of the scheme of arrangement approved by this Court, an application was made by the Petitioners in the complaints filed by the first Respondent. In the said Applications, a contention was raised that the liability of the first Petitioner stands discharged by issuing equity shares to the first Respondent-Complainant. A contention was raised in the said application that the first Petitioner has complied with the order of this Court by issuing letters of allotment of its equity shares to the first Respondent-Complainant. The prayer in the application was that the offences under section 138 read with section 141 of the said Act of 1881 may be compounded. . (d) The said application was contested by the first Respondent-Complainant by contending that a complaint under section 138 of the said Act of 1881 was not a recovery proceeding. It was contended that the application filed by - 8 - the Petitioner for compounding of the offence was not maintainable and therefore, the application be dismissed. By an order passed by the learned Magistrate on 19th September 2006, the said applications made by the Petitioners were rejected. The learned Magistrate while rejecting the applications came to the conclusion that the parties will have to adduce evidence and before evidence was adduced, it was premature to declare that the offence was compounded. Revision Applications were preferred by the Petitioners before the Sessions Court for challenging the orders of the Trial Court. The Revision Applications were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. While dismissing the Revision Applications, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that an order of compounding an offence cannot be passed against the wishes of the first Respondent-complainant and he cannot be compelled to enter into a compromise. The learned Judge held that compounding of an offence is a bilateral act. He observed that an offence cannot be compounded on the basis of the unilateral Act on the part of the accused. . (e) The prayers originally made in this group of Petitions were of declaration that the alleged offence was compounded and for setting aside the order of the Sessions Court in Revision. During the course of submissions, on the prayer was made by Shri Desai, the learned Counsel appearing - 9 - for the Petitioners, a prayer for quashing under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Code’) was allowed to be incorporated by carrying out an amendment to the prayer clause and he was permitted to argue on the said prayer. 4. The second group of Petitions consists of Criminal Writ Petition No.710/2008 to 719/2008. These Petitions have been filed by the original accused Nos.1 to 5 in complaints filed by the first Respondent in the said Petitions under section 138 read with section 141 of the said Act of 1881. In the said complaints, process was issued by the learned Magistrate. After the process was issued by the learned Magistrate, an application was made by the petitioners invoking section 147 of the said Act of 1881 for recording compounding of the offence on the basis of the scheme of compromise and arrangement relating to the 1st petitioner-1st accused company under section 391 of the said Act of 1956 which was approved by this court under order dated 17th September 2005. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application by holding that the petitioners had not produced any receipt showing the payment of the amount to the original complainant. The prayer in these petitions is for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate passed on the said application and for allowing the application made by the petitioners for compounding of the offences. - 10 - 5. The third group of petitions (W.P.nos.1424 to 1433 of 2008) is again filed by the accused in a complaint filed by the first Respondents therein under section 138 read with section 141 of the said Act of 1881. The process was issued by the learned Trial Judge on the complaints filed by the first Respondent. Here also an application was made by the petitioners for terminating the proceedings or for compounding of the offence on the basis of an order under section 391 of the said Act of 1956 in relation to the 1st Petitioner-1st accused company. The prayer made in these petitions is for quashing the complaints on the ground that the order passed under section 391 of the Companies Act,1956 sanctioning a scheme amounts to compounding the offence under section 138 of the said Act of 1881. SUBMISSIONS 6. As pointed out earlier, detailed submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the parties and especially by the learned counsel for the parties in the first group of petitions (W.P.2770 of 2006 and other connected matters). The submission of Shri Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners in the said first group is that once a scheme of arrangement or compromise is sanctioned by the Company Court in exercise of power under section 391 of the said Act of 1956, the scheme - 11 - supersedes all earlier contracts between the accused company and its unsecured creditors. His submission is that there is no legally enforceable liability de hors the scheme sanctioned by the court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the scheme of arrangement is sanctioned by the Company Court, even if the company wishes to pay the amount payable under the dishonoured cheque, the company will be prohibited from paying the said amount except in a manner provided under the sanctioned scheme. His further submission is that once the scheme is sanctioned after obtaining the support of the requisite majority, it amounts to a deemed consent of the unsecured creditors. It is submitted that the scheme binds all the unsecured creditors whether they have supported the scheme or opposed the scheme and the sanction of the scheme amounts to compounding the offence under section 138 r/w section 141 of the said Act of 1881. 7. It was submitted that in essence the section 391 of the said Act of 1956 was enacted as a social measure so as to prevent the winding up of the companies. The learned counsel submitted that after the Company Court is satisfied that the scheme is fair, reasonable and is not opposed to the public policy, the scheme is approved/sanctioned and once the scheme is sanctioned, it binds all the unsecured creditors as if each of them had entered into a new contract with the company. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of - 12 - J.K.(Bom) P.Ltd. vs.Kaiser-I-Hind Sp.& Wvg. Co. (A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1041), he submitted that in view of the sanctioned scheme, the original debt becomes payable only in the manner and only to the extent provided in the scheme. Relying upon another decision of the Apex court in the case of S.K.Gupta and another vs. K.P.Jain and another (A.I.R. 1928 S.C. 734), he submitted that the scheme under section 391 of the said Act is essentially a compromise between the company and its unsecured creditors and it binds not only the company but the dissenting unsecured creditors or members. He also placed reliance on a decision of this court in case of the Vasant Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator and another [(1981) 51 Comp Cas 20 (Bom)] and submitted that under section 391 of the said Act of 1956, the scheme becomes binding upon all the members of the company, irrespective of the fact whether they have expressly consented to it or not. He submitted that once the scheme is sanctioned and is brought into force, the creditors of the company can demand repayment of their dues only in terms of the scheme and not otherwise than in terms of the scheme. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners after referring to the scheme which was subject matter of the first group of petitions submitted that on the said scheme being sanctioned, the same amounts to cancellation of all earlier contracts between the company and its creditors and would amount to - 13 - novation of the earlier contract within the meaning the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He submitted that in essence the scheme supersedes all the agreements between the company and its creditors and therefore, once the scheme is sanctioned, the debt for which the dishonoured cheque is issued ceases to be a legally enforceable debt. 9. He submitted that while sanctioning the scheme, the Company Court always considers whether the scheme is fair and reasonable and only after duly recording its satisfaction, the scheme is sanctioned by the company court and that is the reason why it binds all the creditors, shareholders, members etc. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Miheer H. Mafatlal Vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 506). 10. Turning to the facts of the case in the first group of petitions, he submitted that the arrangement or compromise which is approved by the court relates back to the appointed date and therefore, all the debts in existence before the appointed date have ceased to be legally enforceable debts. After referring to the decision of Lahore High Court in Hargopal Vs. People’s Bank of Northern India Ltd. [(1934) Com.Cas 352], the learned counsel submitted that the order sanctioning the scheme operates as a Judgment in rem and therefore, the company is entitled to raise a defence based on - 14 - the scheme. 11. Referring to the section 147 of the said Act of 1881, he submitted that the offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the said Act of 1881 is compoundable without the sanction of the court. He submitted that under section 147, the offence can be compounded at any stage. His submission was once there was a compromise recorded between the parties, the same automatically results in acquittal of the accused. He submitted that as the offence under section 138 of the said Act of 1881 is compoundable without sanction of the court, once was there a compromise which is binding on the parties, what remains to be done by the Court is only to pass a consequential order of closure of proceedings. He submitted that the legislative intent of making the offence compoundable by the amendment of the year 2002 cannot be ignored by the court. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s.Dalmia Cement (Bharat) vs. M/s.Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. and others (A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1952). 12. A submission made by him in the alternative is that once there is a scheme of compromise or arrangement sanctioned under section 391 of the said Act of 1956 , it is binding on all the concerned parties. On the basis of the scheme, this court can exercise power under section 482 of the said Code of quashing the proceedings. He placed reliance on the decision - 15 - of the Apex Court in the case of C.B.I. vs. Duncan Agro Industries, Calcutta (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2452). He submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision, not only that the scheme amounts to compounding, as the debt covered by the concerned cheque ceases to be a legally enforceable debt, the continuation of the prosecution cannot be allowed as it will amount to abuse of process of law. He also invited my attention to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. C.B.I. (A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2545). 13. The learned counsel also dealt with the contention raised by the original complainant on the basis of the certain Judgments dealing with the exercise of powers under section 391 of the said Act of 1956. He submitted that sub-section 6 of section 391 operates pending the proceeding for sanction of the scheme. He submitted that sub section 6 of section 391 operates only at the interim stage and the same does not operate after the conclusion of the proceeding as a result of order of the court sanctioning arrangement or compromise. He pointed out that the intention of the legislature is to ensure that criminal proceedings are not stayed merely because proceeding under section 391 is pending for adjudication before the Company Court. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 359) and All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt.Ltd. - 16 - and others Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and another (A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 247), he submitted that the Judgment of this court sanctioning the scheme under section 391 of the said Act of 1956 can be looked into for considering the prayer for quashing the Criminal proceeding in a petition invoking section 482 of the said Code. He submitted that the Judgment sanctioning the scheme will be certainly relevant in view of section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. 14. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Others [(2000) 2 S.C.C. 745]. He relied upon that part of the said decision where the effect of order passed under section 22-A of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985 has been considered by the Apex Court. 15. Adverting to the facts of the case, in the first group of petitions, he pointed out that as per the order of this court a meeting of the creditors was convened on 25th June 2005, which was chaired by an Officer appointed by this court. He pointed out that the scheme was approved by overwhelming majority in the meeting. He pointed out that in case of petitioners in seven petitions out of the first group, the cheques were deposited after the meeting was held. He submitted that the complaints in said seven cases were filed - 17 - on 16th September 2005. He submitted that as the scheme relates back to the appointed date i.e. 28th February 2005, the complaints filed after the said date were not maintainable. He pointed out that in one case, though the cheque was deposited before the date of meeting, notice period expired after the meeting. He pointed out that in the said case the shares have been accepted by the complainant in terms of the arrangement sanctioned by the court. He pointed out that in case of two petitions, cheques were dishonoured on 6th April 2005 and the appointed date of scheme is 28th February 2005. He