9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 576 - HC - Companies LawCondonation of delay - reasons for delay - Held that - A perusal of the complaint and the application seeking condonation of delay reveals that efforts were made to trace the respondents and to inspect the records which were all frustrated and finally reverting back to the IFCIL, the petitioner collected the documents and filed the complaint. Thus the date of knowledge of offence to the petitioner can be attributed only when complete facts with incriminating documents were disclosed by IFCIL after appointment of the inquiry officer. Hence it cannot be held that there was a delay of one year and nine months in filing of the complaint from the date of knowledge of the offence. Considering the fact that the date of knowledge of the offence to the petitioner which falls in the category of a person aggrieved by the offence could be attributed only on 25th August, 2004, when complete records were given by IFCIL and the complaint was filed on 30th September, 2004. Thus there was no delay in filing of the complaint. Hence there was no need for seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a complaint. 2. Determination of the date of knowledge of the offence. 3. Whether the offence was continuous in nature. 4. Competence of the petitioner to file the complaint. 5. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing a Complaint: The petitioner, SEBI, filed a complaint under Sections 113 and 621 of the Companies Act, 1956, along with an application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was initially rejected by the ACMM on 4th June 2008, and the revision petition was dismissed by the ASJ on 18th January 2011. The courts held that SEBI did not make sufficient efforts to trace the respondents and obtain the necessary documents within the prescribed period of limitation. The ACMM noted that SEBI could have collected the documents from IFCIL within the limitation period. 2. Determination of the Date of Knowledge of the Offence: The petitioner argued that the date of knowledge of the offence should be considered as the date when complete facts and incriminating documents were disclosed by IFCIL after the appointment of the inquiry officer. The court, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals Ltd., held that the date to compute the delay is not the date of knowledge of the shareholder but that of the complainant who files the complaint in the court. In this case, the date of knowledge to SEBI was attributed to 25th August 2004, when complete records were provided by IFCIL. Thus, the complaint filed on 30th September 2004 was within the limitation period. 3. Whether the Offence was Continuous in Nature: The petitioner contended that the offence was continuous in nature, and therefore, there was no delay in filing the complaint. The court, however, did not delve deeply into this argument, as it found that the complaint was filed within the limitation period based on the date of knowledge of the offence. 4. Competence of the Petitioner to File the Complaint: The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals Ltd., which clarified that SEBI, as a statutory body empowered to hold inquiries of this nature, is competent to file a complaint under Section 113 of the Companies Act. The court emphasized that SEBI, as an aggrieved party, is entitled to the benefit of Section 469(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., which pertains to the period of limitation. 5. Concurrent Findings of Fact by Lower Courts: The respondents argued that the concurrent findings of fact by the ACMM and ASJ should not be interfered with. However, the High Court found that the lower courts had erred in their interpretation of the date of knowledge of the offence and the competence of SEBI to file the complaint. The High Court set aside the impugned orders, directing the ACMM to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that there was no delay in filing the complaint by SEBI as the date of knowledge of the offence was attributed to 25th August 2004, and the complaint was filed on 30th September 2004. The court emphasized that SEBI, as an aggrieved party, is competent to file the complaint and is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 469(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The impugned orders were set aside, and the ACMM was directed to proceed with the complaint according to the law.
|
