9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (9) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd accused No. 7 is the general manager of the company. A clerk in the office of the Registrar of Companies examined as P.W. 1 stated that the accused company did not file copies of balance-sheet and profit and loss accounts as on December 31, 1958. According to P.W. 1, the balance-sheet should have been laid at the general meeting of the company which ought to have been held within nine months after the expiry of the financial year ending on December 31, 1958, and the statement was due in the office of the Registrar by the middle of October, 1959. As the balance-sheet was not received, the office sent a letter, exhibit P-10, dated December 6, 1960, calling upon the company to furnish the balance-sheet. In spite of correspondence, the bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et and the profit and loss account after they have been laid before the company at the general meeting. There is no obligation cast upon the company to file any such copies, if no general meeting has been called. As I started by saying, it is common ground that no general meeting of the company has been convened at which the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account for 1944 has been laid. Apart from authority, it would seem clear on the terms of this section that the company and its four directors have not made any default in complying with the requirements of this sub-section of section 134." In a recent decision in State of Bombay v. Bhandhan Ram Bhandani [1961] 31 Comp. Cas. 1, 4, 6 ; [1961] 1 S.C.R. 801, the Supreme Court too ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out the difference in language and held : "If the language of section 134(1) makes any difference as to the principle to be applied in ascertaining whether a breach of it has occurred or not as to which we say nothing in this case then that case can be of no assistance to the respondents. If, however, no such difference can be made, then we think that it was not correctly decided." In conclusion, the Supreme Court observed : "If the principle that a person charged with an offence cannot rely on his own default as an answer to the charge is correct, as we think it is, and which we do not find Chagla C.J. saying it is not, then that principle would clearly apply when a person is charged with a breach oft. section 32 of our Act." T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 23, 1956, a committee of management was appointed. On December 4, 1957, some of the appellants were elected as directors. On the same day a receiver was appointed to take charge and be in management of the affairs of the company. An appeal against that decision was preferred in O.S.A. No. 1 of 1958 and the taking of charge by the directors was stayed. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on March 22, 1958. The directors were elected on March 31, 1958, and they started functioning. Learned counsel submitted that when they took charge in March, 1958, the affairs of the company were in utter chaos and that the accounts for the years 1954 and 1955 were not passed and the accounts for the subsequent years 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958 were not au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
