Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2012 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 5 - HC - Companies LawPray for being exonerated - limitation - inter-corporate deposit – violation - permission of the Central Government was not obtained for making the inter-corporate deposit - reply of the company that in the decision making process for advancing the inter-corporate deposit, this director did not participate Allegation was that on inspection of the minutes of the board of directors it was found by the Central Government that there was no recording in the minutes whether the directors were interested in any matter discussed there - it was said that the interested directors did not participate in them and their presence was not included Travelling expenses of some family members of the directors were shown as expenses of the company - was mis-utilization of the company's fund - company replied to an earlier identical notice on 19 August, 2009, saying that the presence of the spouse was necessary in the business meetings which the directors of the company attended. The presence of the spouse promoted the company's business interests Limitation – Held that:- when a section 633(2) application is pending in the High Court, within the period of limitation, the Central Government should seek an injunction under section 470(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, instead of allowing limitation to set in, particularly so, when it follows the practice of not prosecuting an accused during the pendency of a section 633(2) proceeding. As the offences are minor and as no arguments were advanced in this behalf, petitioners ought to be discharged from the accusation on the ground of limitation. Since the petitioners are being discharged on the ground of limitation there is no need for the court to probe into the alleged offences. application is accordingly allowed by discharging the petitioners
|