Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

K.M. Capital Ltd. & Others Versus Registrar of Companies & Others

2015 (6) TMI 184 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Violation of the provisions of Section 205/205A of the Companies Act, 1956 - Delay in payment of interim dividend - Complaint filed after a delay of more than three years - Charges not framed for more than 12 years after filing of the complaint - Held that:- It was submitted that Section 5 of the Act provides that the liability in respect of offences committed under the Act devolves upon the officer in default but the respondent No.1 has not mentioned the name of officer in default. It has array .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e not placed on record. In the absence of primary evidence no offence can be deemed to have been made out.

Another valid reason assigned by the petitioner is that the charges have not been framed for more than 12 years after filing of the complaint by respondent No.1.In view of foregoing reasons, the petitioners have been able to make a strong case for quashing of proceedings due to delay in filing of complaint and on account of delay of 12 years even the charges have not been framed. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as the process was issued against the petitioners for violation of the provisions of Section 205/205A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. The main allegations inter alia raised by the respondent No.1 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari on 3rd November, 1999 were (a) that petitioner No. 1 is a company and petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 being the directors of the company are lia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from the Department of Company Affairs the complaint could not have been filed in the Court. The necessary direction was accorded on 31st January, 1999 and the complaint could only be filed on 3rd November, 1999. It was also averred that the provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C is not applicable as offence is of a continuing nature. 4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that from the allegations made by respondent No.1, no case is made out against the petitioners on account of the reasons tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence, which is punishable with more severe or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. 5. Section 205/205A of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng agent or secretaries and treasurers; and where the managing agent is a firm or body corporate, every partner in the firm and every director of the body corporate; and where the secretaries and treasurers are a firm, every partner in the firm and where they are a body corporate, every director thereof; shall, shall if he is knowingly a party to the default, be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven days and shall also be liable to fine." 6. From the foreg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3rd November, 1999 i.e. after a delay of more than three years. 8. The argument addressed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has force in view of settled law on the issue in hand. i) In the case of Mr. M.Mahani vs Securities and Exchange Board of India in Crl.M(M) No.919/2002 decided on 1st August, 2003 wherein it was held that the offence under Section 113 of the Act is not a continuing offence and is therefore covered under Section 468 Cr.P.C. ii) Similar view have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version