TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 999 of 1988, the respondent has filed the complaint against Ramamurthy Metal Decorating Industries Ltd., the petitioner herein, Subash Chandra Bose and Ramamurthy arraying them as accused Nos. 1 to 4 under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The first accused was incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956. It is represented by accused Nos. 2 to 4 who are directors of the company, according to the particulars filed in the office of the complainant. According to section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, the company and its directors are under a statutory obligation to file with the Registrar of Companies, three copies of the balance-sheet and profit and loss account in the presc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1956. This complaint is in respect of non-filing of copies of the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the company as on December 31, 1986, which were required to be placed in the annual general meeting by a day not later than June 30, 1987. Mr. A.K. Mylsamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner was not a director of the company during the period for which the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the company were to be filed before the respondent. It is his contention that the company had three directors, and one-third of the board of directors are to retire each year by virtue of the provisions of the Companies Act and the petitioner had retired from directorship during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectors of the company, according to the particulars filed in the office of the complainant. If the petitioner had retired from the directorship, by virtue of the provisions of the Companies Act during the relevant period, the petitioner can very well prove it during the course of trial and get himself acquitted. It cannot be presumed that the petitioner is no longer a director in view of the positive allegation that he is a director according to particulars filed in the office. The complaints do positively make an averment that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were the directors of the company as per the particulars filed in the office. If that be so, that would be sufficient to fasten liability for non-filing of the returns enjoined upon them under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
