9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1984 (11) TMI 260 - HC - Companies Law
Issues: Prosecution under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 for failure to furnish balance-sheet and profit and loss account.
Analysis: The judgment involved a prosecution under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 against a company and its directors for not submitting the balance-sheet and profit and loss account to the Registrar of Companies. The defense argued that the annual general meeting for the relevant year was held within the prescribed time frame, and the adjourned meeting where the financial documents were presented was a continuation of the initial meeting held within 15 months as required by section 166 of the Act. The prosecution contended that the documents should have been filed within 30 days of the annual general meeting, which was not done in this case. The court referred to previous judgments to interpret the legal provisions. It cited the case of M. D. Mundra v. Assistant Registrar of Companies, which established that an adjourned annual general meeting is considered a continuation of the initial meeting. Additionally, the court relied on the case of Sudhir Kumar Seal v. Assistant Registrar of Companies, which allowed for adjournment of the meeting to present the accounts. Another case, Bejoy Kumar Karnani v. Assistant Registrar of Companies, emphasized the need to complete the annual general meeting within the statutory period unless extended by the Registrar under section 166(1) of the Act. After considering the precedents, the court concluded that the annual general meeting was initially held on time and the adjourned meeting fell within the 15-month period mandated by section 166(1) of the Act. As the balance-sheet and profit and loss account were submitted to the Registrar of Companies promptly after the meeting, the court found no violation of section 220(1) of the Act. Consequently, the prosecution was deemed not maintainable, and the application to quash the proceedings was granted. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sankar Bhattacharyya agreed with the decision to allow the application and quash the prosecution proceedings.
|
