2004 (10) TMI 333 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Petition under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding notices from Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan.

Analysis:
1. Background and Petition Details:
The petitioners sought relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, in response to notices from the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan. They requested exemption from complying with the Act's provisions, claiming they were not active directors with functional responsibilities and should not be considered 'officers in default'. Additionally, they asked to halt legal proceedings and sought appropriate court orders.

2. Company Affairs and Directorship:
M/s. Fancy Stones (India) Limited, incorporated under the Act in 1979, faced compliance defaults for several years. The petitioners, as directors, argued they were not actively involved in the company's affairs, which were managed by other directors. The company's management transitioned to RIICO, but the petitioners failed to prove this claim. The RIICO's role in taking over the company's management was questioned.

3. Compliance Defaults and Legal Notices:
The company failed to comply with various Act provisions from 1988 to 1998, leading to notices from the Registrar of Companies. The petitioners, upon receiving these notices, chose to file a petition under section 633(2) instead of responding to the Registrar's show-cause notice.

4. Contentions and Arguments:
The petitioners argued they were not actively involved in the company's operations and should be granted relief under section 633(2). They highlighted issues with Provident Fund dues and the RIICO's actions, claiming inability to comply with legal requirements.

5. Court's Decision and Reasoning:
The court considered the petitioners' arguments but found them insufficient. The court noted that the petitioners voluntarily accepted directorship and failed to show they were not involved in the company's management. The court rejected claims of RIICO's management takeover and emphasized the petitioners' duty to comply with legal obligations as directors.

6. Conclusion and Dismissal:
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners' age or lack of day-to-day involvement did not absolve them of their responsibilities as directors. The court advised the petitioners to address their defenses during prosecution and found no grounds to grant the relief sought in the petition.

In conclusion, the court's judgment emphasized the directors' obligations under the Companies Act, dismissing the petition due to the petitioners' failure to demonstrate exemption from compliance requirements despite their claimed lack of active involvement in the company's affairs.