9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. Petitioner No. 1 company had appointed M/s. T.S. Kakkar and Co., as their first statutory auditors on 8-1-1996. The accounts were audited by the said auditors till the year ending March 31, 1999. Thereafter, M/s. T.S. Kakkar and Co., expressed their inability to audit the accounts of the company. Accepting the verbal resignation of T.S. Kakkar and Co., a resolution was passed in the meeting of the board of directors of the company on 8-6-2000, resolving to convene an extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) to appoint new auditors. At the extraordinary general meeting held on 3-7-2000, M/s. D. Kothari and Co., were appointed auditors of the company in place of M/s. T.S. Kakkar and Co. 3. On 15-6-2002, M/s. T.S. Kakkar and Co., filed a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Registrar of Companies submits that the offence should be treated as a continuing one since no permission of the Central Government has been obtained till date. He further seeks to invoke the provision of section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to contend that the delay, if any, in the learned Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance was a reasonable one for which, explanation was available in the complaint itself. 7. A perusal of the complaint shows that the offence is for contravention of section 224(7) of the Act which requires a company to obtain the previous approval of the Central Government for removal of the auditor at a general meeting. Admittedly, the prior approval of the Central Government was not obtained when M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, nowhere mentions any such contention having been raised by the complainant-Registrar of Companies. The order does not make any reference either to section 468 or 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque AIR 2005 SC 9, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal complaint on this basis. 11. Secondly, the explanation offered in the complaint is only that the complaint could not have been filed without the prior sanction of the Regional Director, Kanpur, which was received on 9-9-2003. The complaint still does not offer any explanation for the delay in the Regional Director, Kanpur, according sanction although the Department of Company Affairs was made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
