9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding the obligation of directors to present financial documents at the annual general meeting. Analysis: The appellant filed a complaint against two accused-respondents, directors of a private company, for failing to present the balance-sheet and profit and loss account at the annual general meeting as required by section 210(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The learned Magistrate initially discharged the accused, ruling that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense under section 210(5) of the Act. However, the High Court clarified that the offense under section 210(5) is triable as a summons case, thus treating the discharge as an acquittal. The Magistrate's reasoning that no offense was disclosed because no annual general meeting was held by the specified date was deemed incorrect by the High Court. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the High Court emphasized that the failure to call a meeting cannot be used as a defense against the obligation to present financial documents. The Supreme Court precedent established that the provisions of section 210(5) are applicable even in cases where no general meeting was held, reinforcing the directors' duty to comply with the statutory requirements. The High Court, based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of similar provisions in a previous case, concluded that the accused directors were indeed obligated to present the financial documents, regardless of the holding of the annual general meeting. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Magistrate's order and directing the case to proceed from the stage prior to the discharge of the accused, in line with the law and the court's observations.
|
