1975 (12) TMI 126 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Petition to set aside an order passed by the Registrar of Companies under section 611(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, directing the petitioner to pay additional fee. Grounds include a previous prosecution against the petitioner for failure to file statements required under the Act, resulting in an acquittal, invoking "res judicata" and violation of article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a liquidator of a bank in liquidation, sought to challenge an order by the Registrar of Companies to pay additional fees under section 611(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Registrar imposed the fee due to significant delays in filing required statements. The petitioner had faced a prosecution for these delays, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted him, leading to the argument of "res judicata" and violation of constitutional rights. However, the court clarified that the relief granted by the Magistrate did not equate to discharge or acquittal in the context of the Companies Act. The relief under section 633(1) of the Act focuses on whether the accused acted honestly and reasonably, not condoning the delay itself. The power to condone delay lies with the Central Government under section 637B, not with the criminal court or the Registrar.

The court emphasized that the additional fee under section 611(2) is a revenue demand, distinct from a penalty or punishment. The power to levy such fees is without prejudice to any other liability, as stated in the Act. The court further addressed the constitutional aspect, highlighting that article 20(2) prohibits double jeopardy and multiple punishments for the same offense. It requires a previous prosecution ending in punishment, which was not the case here. The court distinguished the Registrar's actions under section 611(2) from criminal proceedings, stating that the Registrar is not a court of law or judicial tribunal in this context.

Referring to precedents from the Madras and Allahabad High Courts, the judgment underscored that the demand for additional fees is a revenue matter, not a prosecution or punishment falling under constitutional protections. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the relief granted by the Magistrate did not bar the Registrar from proceeding under section 611(2) and that the petitioner's claims lacked merit in light of legal principles and precedents.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition challenging the Registrar's order to pay additional fees under section 611(2) of the Companies Act, emphasizing the distinction between revenue demands and penalties. It clarified the scope of relief under section 633(1) and the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under article 20(2), ultimately ruling in favor of the Registrar's actions and rejecting the petitioner's claims of "res judicata" and constitutional violations.