1973 (8) TMI 67 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether provisions of section 26 show that the obligation to file the list is independent of the holding of the general meeting was accepted? Held that - On the facts proved by the prosecution an offence is not disclosed under section 134(4). A different offence might have been committed either under section 76(2) or under section 133(3). Under section 134 of the 1913 Act the obligation to send a copy of the balance-sheet and profit and loss account is dependent completely on its being laid before a general meeting. It is clear, therefore, that on principle and authority it should be held that no offence was committed by the directors in this case under section 134. They might have been guilty of offences under sections 76 and 133 but not under section 134. We say nothing about section 32 about which this court has already laid down the law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to file balance-sheet and profit and loss account with the Registrar of Companies.
2. Interpretation of section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Applicability of prior defaults as a defense to prosecution under section 220.
4. Comparison with section 134 of the Companies Act, 1913.
5. Analysis of relevant judicial precedents.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Failure to file balance-sheet and profit and loss account with the Registrar of Companies:
The case arose from a complaint against the first respondent-company and its directors for not filing the balance-sheet and profit and loss account with the Registrar of Companies by the stipulated date, as required under section 220(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had previously held that if no general body meeting is held, the balance-sheet and profit and loss account cannot be laid before it, and thus, section 220 cannot be complied with.

2. Interpretation of section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the failure to call a general body meeting and lay the balance-sheet and profit and loss account before it could be used as a defense against prosecution under section 220. The Court examined the language of section 220 and compared it with section 134 of the Companies Act, 1913, noting that the responsibility to file these documents arises only after they have been laid before a general meeting.

3. Applicability of prior defaults as a defense to prosecution under section 220:
The Court referenced its earlier decision in State of Bombay v. Bandhan Rain Bhandani, which held that a person charged with an offense cannot rely on their own default as a defense. However, the Court distinguished this case by pointing out that section 134 of the 1913 Act (corresponding to section 220 of the 1956 Act) explicitly requires the documents to be laid before a general meeting before filing with the Registrar.

4. Comparison with section 134 of the Companies Act, 1913:
The Court noted that most High Courts had interpreted section 134 of the 1913 Act to mean that the failure to call a general meeting could not be used as a defense. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had taken a contrary view, which the Supreme Court found persuasive. The Court emphasized the clear distinction in the language of sections 32, 133, and 134 of the 1913 Act, noting that section 134 specifically required the documents to be laid before a general meeting.

5. Analysis of relevant judicial precedents:
The Court reviewed various decisions, including those from the Calcutta, Allahabad, Rajasthan, Madras, Orissa, Patna, and Kerala High Courts. The Court found that while most High Courts had followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Bandhan Rain Bhandani's case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court's reasoning was compelling. The Court also considered earlier decisions such as Debendra Nath Das Gupta v. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Park v. Lawton, which supported the view that the failure to hold a general meeting precluded compliance with section 134.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the holding of a general meeting and the laying of the balance-sheet and profit and loss account before it are essential prerequisites for compliance with section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, the failure to hold a general meeting cannot be used as a defense against prosecution under this section. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.