9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Complaint filed by Registrar of Companies deemed time-barred under section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Contention regarding the necessity of filing a petition under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to excuse the delay in filing the complaint. 3. Interpretation of section 113(3) of the Companies Act regarding the aggrieved party's role in launching a prosecution. 4. Argument on the sufficiency of shareholder complaints to initiate a prosecution under section 113. Analysis: Issue 1: The complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies was challenged as time-barred under section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint, stating that a petition under section 473 of the Code should have been filed to excuse the delay in filing within six months from the date of the offence. The Magistrate concluded that as no such application was submitted, the complaint was time-barred. Issue 2: The revision petitioner argued that the complaint was filed within the six-month period as the lapse was discovered during an inspection on 20-7-1992, leading to the complaint being lodged on 28-8-1992. However, the respondents contended that the delay in filing the complaint was unjustified, as no shareholder had complained or applied to the CLB regarding the delay in receiving share certificates. Issue 3: The interpretation of section 113(3) of the Companies Act was crucial in determining the aggrieved party's role in initiating a prosecution. The respondents argued that the Registrar of Companies was not the aggrieved party under this section, and a prosecution could only be launched on the application of an affected shareholder. Since no shareholder had made a complaint, the complaint filed by the Registrar was deemed incompetent and time-barred. Issue 4: The argument centered on whether shareholder complaints were necessary to trigger a prosecution under section 113. The respondents emphasized that without a shareholder complaint, the Registrar of Companies could not be considered the aggrieved party under the Act. The Court agreed with this interpretation, stating that no error was committed by the Trial Magistrate in dismissing the complaint, as no application from a shareholder was received to justify the delay in filing. In conclusion, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Trial Magistrate's order, and the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the decision that the complaint was time-barred under section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956.
|
