9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 372 of the Companies Act, 1929 regarding relief against penalties imposed on directors. - Application of Section 372 for proceedings against an officer of a company under Section 275. - Distinction between proceedings for fines or penalties and claims for misfeasance or recovery of moneys due to the company. - Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 372 with caution. - Relief from liability for fines or penalties incurred by acting as a director without qualification. - Consideration of evidence and opinions of shareholders or directors for relief under Section 372, sub-Section 2 regarding repayment of remuneration received while not qualified. Analysis: The judgment delivered by Maugham, J. pertains to a petition presented under Section 372 of the Companies Act, 1929, addressing the relief against penalties imposed on directors. The judge acknowledges the applicability of Section 372, sub-section 1 to proceedings against an officer under Section 275, including the power to relieve against penalties imposed on directors for various violations. It is highlighted that Section 372, sub-section 2 grants the Court the authority to provide relief when a director anticipates a claim under the mentioned sections. The distinction between proceedings for fines or penalties and claims for misfeasance or recovery of moneys due to the company is emphasized, with different implications for the Exchequer. The judge emphasizes the need for cautious exercise of jurisdiction under Section 372 in such cases. In the specific case before the Court, the petitioner is found to have acted honestly and reasonably despite a minor negligence in not fulfilling the qualification share requirement within the stipulated time frame. The judge, considering the circumstances, decides to relieve the petitioner entirely from the penal liability of the fine imposed. However, the analysis under Section 372, sub-Section 2 presents a different scenario. The judge notes the absence of evidence regarding the views of shareholders or fellow directors on the petitioner's liability to repay remuneration received while not qualified. The Court expresses the necessity for clear evidence on the opinions of concerned parties before granting relief under this subsection, especially in cases where a director may be obligated to repay sums to the company due to contractual obligations. In conclusion, while the petitioner is relieved from fines or penalties for acting without qualification, the Court refrains from granting relief regarding the repayment of remuneration received during the same period without sufficient evidence of the stakeholders' perspectives. The judgment underscores the importance of considering all relevant factors and exercising jurisdiction with care in matters involving relief against penalties and liabilities imposed on company officers.
|
