9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the statutory notice served under section 434 of the Companies Act. 2. Compliance with the requirement of serving the demand notice at the registered office of the company. 3. Consequences of non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the statutory notice served under section 434 of the Companies Act: The petitioner sought an order for winding up the respondent-company under section 434 of the Companies Act, alleging the company's inability to pay its debts. The statutory notice under section 434 was issued on January 14, 2002, to the address "Rashid Mansion, Worli Point, Mumbai 400 018." The respondent-company replied on February 20, 2002, raising a preliminary objection regarding the validity of the notice, arguing that the notice was not served at the registered office, which had changed to "Kartar (Nilum) Mansion, 2nd Floor, 389 Lamington Road, Mumbai 400 004" as recorded by the Registrar on May 29, 2001. The respondent's counsel argued that the notice did not comply with section 434(1) and was therefore invalid, citing the Division Bench's judgment in N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Pravinchandra P. Mehta, which mandates serving the notice at the registered office. 2. Compliance with the requirement of serving the demand notice at the registered office of the company: The petitioner's counsel contended that the respondent-company continued to represent "Rashid Mansion" as its registered office in communications and meetings, suggesting substantial compliance with section 434. They also argued that the statutory notice reached the respondent-company's registered office, evidenced by the company's reply, thus invalidating the objection. The petitioner's counsel relied on judgments from Mukund Kanaiyalal Patel v. Swarup Shree Yarn (P.) Ltd. and Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., which supported the notion of substantial compliance. 3. Consequences of non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements: The court examined section 434(1)(a), which requires serving a demand notice at the registered office. The court noted that the statutory fiction deeming a company unable to pay its debts arises only if the demand notice is served at the registered office and the company neglects to pay within three weeks. The court emphasized that the provisions for serving the demand notice are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. The court referred to section 13, section 17, and section 146 of the Companies Act, which outline the procedures for changing the registered office and the obligations for notifying the Registrar. The court observed that the change in the registered office was recorded by the Registrar before the statutory notice was issued. The Division Bench in N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P.) Ltd. held that serving the demand notice at the registered office is mandatory, precluding any argument for substantial compliance. The Karnataka High Court's judgment, which allowed for substantial compliance, was implicitly based on the premise that the requirement is directory, not mandatory. The court concluded that the requirement of serving the demand notice at the registered office is mandatory, and failure to comply strictly invalidates the notice. Conclusion: The court upheld the preliminary objection, ruling that the statutory notice was not served at the registered office, rendering the petition non-maintainable. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.
|
