9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 153 - HC - Companies LawNon-compliance of Section 220 of the Act, 1956 for period in year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 - non-submission of balance sheet and profit and loss account - case of petitioner is that he retired form post of Director prior to the alleged period and no liability can be fastened on him - HELD THAT - This is a case where admittedly petitioner worked as Director of the Company between the period 30th September, 1992 till 13th March, 1995 and then resigned. In 2011, under the mistaken belief, complaint was filed against present petitioner also for alleged non-compliance of Section 220 of Act, 1956 for which penalty is provided under Section 162 of the Act, 1956. Admittedly, alleged non-compliance is for the period 2008-2009 and year 2009-2010 where some defaults on the part of the Company are made. Admittedly, petitioner resigned w.e.f. 13th March, 1995. Much thereafter, alleged defaults have been committed. From the facts, it appears that S.E.B.I. has already considered this aspect twice and exonerated the petitioner from the teeth of Section 162 of the Act and other related provisions. This stands true for all other cases also, particulars of which are given in table above. All provisions and respective penalty, if looked into, then it is clear that no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner made out his case for interference. Once, he resigned in the year 1995, then he cannot be fastened with any liability for a period of 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged violations under various sections of the Companies Act, 1956 and Companies Act, 2013. 2. Petitioner's resignation as a director and its effect on liability. 3. Applicability of SEBI's findings on the petitioner's liability. 4. Trial Court's rejection of applications under Sections 239 and 91 of Cr.P.C. 5. Application of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Violations: The petitions involve alleged violations under Sections 166, 159, 129, 137, 12(1), 96, and 129 of the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013, with penalties under Sections 162, 129(7), 137(3), and 99 of the respective Acts. The violations pertain to non-submission of annual returns, financial statements, and holding of annual general meetings for the years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014. 2. Petitioner's Resignation: The petitioner resigned as a director of the company on 13th March 1995. The complaint was filed in 2011, alleging non-compliance for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The petitioner argued that he had no role in the company's affairs post-resignation and submitted certified copies of his resignation acceptance by the Registrar of Companies. 3. SEBI's Findings: SEBI, in its proceedings dated 09.09.2004 and 21.10.2016, acknowledged the petitioner's resignation and exonerated him from any liability. SEBI's reports confirmed that the petitioner was not a director during the period of alleged violations and had complied with the necessary requirements while he was a director. 4. Trial Court's Rejection of Applications: The Trial Court rejected the petitioner's applications under Sections 239 and 91 of Cr.P.C., which sought discharge based on his resignation and SEBI's findings. The petitioner contended that the trial court should have considered these documents to verify his non-involvement in the company's affairs during the relevant period. 5. Application of Inherent Powers: The court applied the principles from the cases of Rajeev Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor and State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, which outline the conditions under which the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The court found that continuing the trial would be an abuse of the legal process, as the petitioner had already been exonerated by SEBI and had resigned long before the alleged violations occurred. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the petitioner could not be held liable for the alleged violations as he had resigned in 1995, and SEBI had twice exonerated him. The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in the relevant criminal cases, while allowing the trial to proceed for the other accused in accordance with the law.
|
