1962 (8) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e directors are not material for purposes of disposal of this case. Under section 271 of the Act directors such as the petitioners were required, within two months after their appointment, or, in the case of a director holding office at the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960, within two months after such commencement to file with the Registrar a declaration specifying the qualification shares held by them. This had not been done in this case. A registered letter was sent by the Registrar of Companies on 22nd December, 1961, to the petitioners pointing out that they had not filed the declaration under section 271 of the Act. The Registrar demanded a fee of Rs. 20 for each declaration from each director and also an additional .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liable for prosecution and appropriate action. In this case, it has been brought to my notice that no additional fee of Rs. 180, as demanded from each director, has been paid. According to Companies Regulations, 1956 (Regulation 18), no document required to be registered, recorded or filed by or with the Registrar, shall be so registered, recorded or filed until the fee, if any, payable in respect thereof, is paid. Until such a fee is paid, the document shall not be recorded as having been sent to or received by the Registrar for any purpose specified in or under the Act. It is contended on behalf of the Union of India that there has been no compliance, whatsoever, on the part of the petitioners in so far as the petitioners have not paid th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petition to be premature, I do not think I will be justified in expressing my views on this matter at this early stage. All that the notice mentions is that the directors concerned would be liable for prosecution. This is just to indicate to them what the provision of law is. I do not read in the notice a decision on the part of the authorities to prosecute the petitioners. It is then said that the petitioners as directors have reason to apprehend that any proceeding will, or might be brought against them in respect of any negligence, default, etc. If the additional fee had been paid by the directors, that could have been pleaded as a reason in this court for relieving the directors of the criminal liability. It is the case of both th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X