Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + DSC Companies Law - 2020 (4) TMI DSC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 473 - DSC - Companies LawHolding of Directorship in more than the maximum number of companies - continuation in holding such directorship even after one year from commencement of the Companies Act, 2013 - contravention of Section 165(3) which is punishable under 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. Whether the complainant has proved the documents filed with the complaint? - HELD THAT:- The complainant has filed Ex. CW-1/1 which is computer printout dt. 24.08.17 downloaded from the MCA portal showing the details of DIN application. This document bears stamp of the ROC alongwith signatures of Dy./AROC - This document satisfied the requirement of admissibility of document as evidence U/s 397 of the Act. The document CW-1/2 also bears stamp of certification of the Registrar of Companies as provided under the Act. There is due compliance of section 397 of the Act to prove the evidence of documents kept by Registrar. Hence, the complainant has proved the documents as admissible evidence for the present prosecution. Whether CW-1 Ms. Shefali Gupta AROC is competent to depose in the present case? - HELD THAT:- The complaint was filed by a public servant in his official capacity and admittedly, he was transferred during the pendency of the present case. Witness CW-1 Ms. Shefali Gupta is presently posted as Assistant Registrar of Companies and derives her knowledge on the basis of official record. The argument of CW-1 being an incompetent witness is rejected. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? - HELD THAT:- The offence U/s 165 of Companies Act is continuing in nature till the directorship of accused remains in more than 20 companies after 01.04.15. As per Ex. CW-1/2 the accused was shown as director in more than 20 companies as on 26.07.17 i.e. the date when Ex. CW-1/2 was downloaded from MCA portal. However, complainant themselves have filed copy of letter dt. 23.02.17 of the accused which is Ex. CW-1/4 wherein accused has detailed that his directorship is within the permissible limit as provided U/s 165 of Companies Act - The resignation of accused has not been filed with the complainant office. Moreover, offence U/s 165 is punishable with fine only for each day during which the default continues. The present complaint is within limitation as offence U/s 165 of the Companies Act, 2013 is a continuing offence - the argument of Ld. Counsel that complaint is barred by limitation is humbly rejected. Whether the accused Roop Kishore Madan is/was Director in more than 20 companies on the date of filing of the complaint? - HELD THAT:- The onus is upon the complainant to prove that accused Roop Kishore Madan was Director in more than the number of companies which is permissible under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013. CW-1 has proved Ex. CW-1/1 & Ex. CW-1/2 to show the Directorship of accused - The Ex. CW-1/1 was taken from the MCA portal which reflects name and address details of the accused along with DIN No. 00656697. Ex. CW-1/2 shows a list of companies in which the DIN number of accused is used for his appointment as Director. No evidence has been led to show submission of resignation before 01.04.15 by the accused - the complainant has proved the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Roop Kishore Madan is convicted for the offence under Section 165(6) for contravention of Section 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - decided against accused - application disposed off.
|