9911796707
TMI Blog1941 (11) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k, Limited, of that town for not complying with a requirement of section 87(2) of the Indian Companies Act that particulars of any change in the directorships held by any of its directors should be reported to the Registrar within fourteen days of the change. The sub-Divisional Magistrate of Coimbatore who tried the case, found that a director by name Ponniah Goundar had ceased to be the director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 32(5) this knowledge, wilful intention, has only to be proved where the charge is against an officer of the company, and that the company is liable for failing to comply with the requirements of the section even though none of its officers may be. Section 87(4) says that if default is made in complying with sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of this section (Section 87), the company and every ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company. On the other hand, if we assume that Ponniah Goundar did not officially inform the accused company that he had resigned from one of his directorships, the company would not have been in a position to send the information to the Registrar. A clear distinction between the two sets of cases can no doubt be made; but section 87 does not make that distinction Sub-section (2) of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar in question is that of other directorships held by the directors. If Mr. Somasundaram's contention were correct, then there would be a premium upon negligence by companies. Even though a notice had been sent to the company of a change in directorships or in other particulars, the company would be free of any penalty as long as it did not make a change in the register; so that it would obviously ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
