9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under Sec. 134(4) of the Companies Act 2. Conviction under Sec. 32(4) of the Companies Act 3. Offence under Sec. 87(2) of the Companies Act 4. Proper institution of complaint 5. Misjoinder of parties Analysis: 1. The judgment involved five accused, with charges under Sec. 134(4) of the Companies Act. The accused were directors of a company and were found guilty of not filing the balance sheet with the Registrar. The defense argued that the balance sheet was not due to be filed before the Registrar, as the general meeting had not been convened. The court held that the charge of non-filing of the balance sheet required a balance sheet to be due for filing, and acquitted the accused of this charge. 2. The second charge was under Sec. 32(4) of the Companies Act, related to the annual list of members. The court found discrepancies in the list filed by the company, but noted that there was no evidence of deliberate misrepresentation. The court emphasized that an officer cannot be convicted under this section unless there is willful authorization of the default. The court concluded that the charge failed due to arithmetical errors and acquitted the accused of this charge as well. 3. The third offence was under Sec. 87(2) of the Companies Act, regarding the resignation of a director. The court analyzed the timing of the resignation and the requirement to file notice of such changes with the Registrar. A previous decision was cited to show that the notice period for director changes was not mandatory. The court found no offence committed in not filing the notice within the specified time and acquitted the accused of this charge. 4. The judgment also addressed procedural issues, including the proper institution of the complaint and misjoinder of parties. The court discussed relevant case law on complaint competency and misjoinder of parties, ultimately holding that the misjoinder of parties had vitiated the trial. 5. The judgment further discussed a separate revision case involving the 4th accused and the company, represented by a liquidator. The court found that the liquidator failed to prove his status, leading to a lack of standing in the case. As the grounds were similar to those of other accused, this petition was also allowed, resulting in the setting aside of convictions and acquittal of all accused with fines to be refunded.
|
