9911796707
TMI Blog1941 (1) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners were convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Vizianagaram, under Section 76(2), Companies Act, for not holding a general meeting of the company of which they are the directors within 18 months from the date of the incorporation, and they have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each. One of the defences of the petitioners was that the Registrar had condoned the delay. He was exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of change in directors. The letter R.C. No. 72 of 1940 dated 7th May 1940 of the Assistant Registrar is a reply to Ex. I-a. The Assistant Registrar stated that the condonation was of the delay in filing the annual list of members and summary only." It is true that the directors did not ask expressly in their letter Ex. I-a, to have their delay in holding a general meeting condoned ; but the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; and so I do not think that any decision on that point is called for here. The criminal revision case is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. (Cr. R.C. No. 790 of 1940.) This case is connected with Cr. R.C. No. 789. The petitioners have been convicted under section 131, Companies Act, of not having laid before the general body within 18 months of the incorporation of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
