2013 (1) TMI 415 - HC - Companies Law

Order of conviction challenged - Revision petition filed by 2nd accused - prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 162 of Companies Act - the revision petitioner/appellant has failed to furnish the correct address of the company of which she is the Managing Director - Held that - Revision petitioner submission that the first accused company, who is the 2nd respondent in the revision petition, has already wound up long back and the present address is not known is unable to be sustained. No convincing explanation is forthcoming from the part of the revision petitioner in not taking steps at appropriate time and stage. Thus, though about 10 years are over, so far, the notice to the 2nd respondent is not completed and therefore the Registry has noted the defect and posted the matter in the defect list. In the result, no reason to grant further time and also found no reason to interfere with the order of the appellate court as well as the trial court - revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution and particularly when there is no merit in the challenge raised against the judgment of the lower appellate court.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of lower appellate court dismissing appeal for default.
2. Failure to furnish correct address of the company.
3. Challenge against the order of the lower appellate court.
4. Non-prosecution of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The revision petition was filed by the 2nd accused in S.T.No.56 of 1997, along with another accused company, challenging the lower appellate court's order dismissing her appeal for default. The trial court had convicted the accused for an offence under section 162 of the Companies Act, directing payment of a fine and simple imprisonment in default. The revision petitioner challenged this finding and order of conviction through Crl.A.No.539 of 2000.

2. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as the revision petitioner failed to furnish the correct address of the company, of which she was the Managing Director. The revision petitioner's failure to provide the address of the 1st accused company resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. Despite the lapse of about 10 years, the notice to the 2nd respondent was not completed, leading to the Registry noting the defect and listing the matter for correction.

3. The revision petitioner contended that the first accused company had already wound up, and the current address was unknown. However, the court found this explanation insufficient, highlighting the lack of convincing reasons for not taking appropriate steps earlier. Consequently, the court refused to grant further time and declined to interfere with the orders of the lower appellate court and the trial court, dismissing the revision petition for non-prosecution due to the absence of merit in challenging the lower appellate court's judgment.

4. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision petition due to the revision petitioner's failure to prosecute the appeal adequately and the lack of merit in challenging the lower appellate court's decision. The court emphasized the importance of providing the correct address of the company and taking timely and appropriate steps in legal proceedings, ultimately upholding the lower court's judgment.

← Previous Next →