Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 1972 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1972 (7) TMI 44 - HC - Companies Law

Issues:
Conviction under section 209(4)(a) of the Companies Act for failure to allow inspection of nomination papers.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the conviction of the petitioner, the secretary of a company, under section 209(4)(a) of the Companies Act for failure to allow inspection of nomination papers. The petitioner was convicted by the Sixth Presidency Magistrate and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or face simple imprisonment for one month. The circumstances leading to the prosecution involved a dispute at the 97th annual general meeting of the company, where the complainant, a director-treasurer, requested to inspect nomination papers but was denied access by the petitioner. The petitioner, acting as the secretary, sought orders from the president regarding the inspection request.

The court analyzed the provisions of the Companies Act, specifically section 209(4)(a), which mandates that books of accounts and other relevant papers should be open to inspection by directors during business hours. The court delved into the interpretation of the term "other books and papers" within the context of the Act. It cited legal principles such as noscuntur a sociis and ejusdem generis to interpret the legislative intent behind the provision. The court emphasized that the expression "other books and papers" should be construed restrictively to include only documents of a similar nature to books of account. The court highlighted the legislative history of the provision, noting that the amendment aimed to cover specific records related to production, processing, manufacturing, or mining activities, not general documents like nomination papers.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the failure of the secretary to allow inspection of the nomination papers did not constitute an offense under section 209(4)(a) of the Companies Act. The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, acquitting them of the alleged offense. The judgment allowed the criminal revision, directing the refund of the fine if already collected from the petitioner.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates