TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition under section 633 of the Act before the Company Court with prayer that they may be relieved from any liability on account of non-filing of the balance-sheet, profit and loss account and annual returns of the company known as Mangalchand Hukmichand Industries (MP) (P.) Ltd. (respondent No. 1). Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Act. Prior to 9-8-1967, respondent No. 2 and Laxmiben Chimanlal were the directors. But on retirement of Laxmiben, respondent No. 3 was appointed as director in her place. Later, the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 became the directors of respondent No. 1. The appellants filed the aforesaid petition on the ground that the company had entered into certain contracts with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the fine of Rs. 60 each. They were also directed by the Court to submit the relevant documents within two months. They did not comply with this direction. In view of non-compliance prosecution under section 614A(2) of the Act was launched. This is how the appellants faced another prosecution. They maintained that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being in actual management, were alone liable to comply with the provisions of the Act. To safeguard their interest, they filed the aforesaid company petition for grant of reliefs covered under sub-paras ( a ) to ( g ) of para 11 of the company petition. One of the reliefs was that the appellants be relieved fully from further liability under the Act. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed the reply in oppugna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each case. To deal with a person under section 633, the absence of criminal intention is not relevant. The power under this section is discretionary and has to be exercised only where the court is satisfied that the defaulting officer has acted honestly and reasonably and that having regard to the circumstances of the case, he ought to be excused. It is then that the court may relieve him." 5. We deem it proper to observe that this appeal was required to be registered as company appeal instead of letters patent appeal. 6. We are in general agreement with the conclusion of the Company Court. In such a situation, we are not required to restate the facts or defects, if any. In Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary AI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
