1998 (12) TMI 487 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing complaint for advertisement inviting deposits without permission from the Central Government.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras dealt with a revision against an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate regarding a complaint lodged against a company for making an advertisement inviting deposits from the public without obtaining permission from the Central Government. The complaint should have been filed within six months from the date of knowledge, which was May 24, 1993, the date of the advertisement. The respondent filed an application for exemption on September 24, 1993, which was dismissed on February 24, 1994. However, the complaint was filed only on September 27, 1994, without providing any valid reason for the delay from the date of dismissal of the application. The court emphasized that the doctrine of equality before the law demands equal treatment for all litigants, including the State, and that laws should be administered even-handedly.

The court referred to previous judgments, highlighting that even technical defects should be rectified promptly, especially when the delay is deliberate and unexplained. It was noted that the State, like any other litigant, should not expect special treatment or privileges. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling that emphasized the need for the State to provide explanations for delays in legal proceedings. In this case, since there was no valid explanation for the delay in filing the complaint, the court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the application for condonation of delay. The court concluded that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and considering the technical nature of the alleged offence, the application was rightly dismissed as a proper exercise of discretion by the lower court.

In the final judgment, the High Court dismissed the revision, thereby confirming the lower court's order. It was clarified that since the application was filed to condone the delay only against the first accused and there was no limitation to proceed against the other accused, the lower court was granted the liberty to proceed with the complaint against accused Nos. 2 to 6 in accordance with the law.