1975 (12) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under the Companies Act in time, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, who tried the case, acquitted him, and, therefore, the present order of the Registrar is "barred by res judicata " and is opposed to article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. An affidavit has been filed by the Registrar of Companies stating the facts of the case and the circumstances under which he happened to levy additional fee under section 611(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, which will hereinafter be called "the Act". It is not disputed that there was great delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the statements required to be filed under the Act. and, therefore, the Registrar filed complaints under section 551(5) of the Act against the petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... additional fee, as is clear from the sub-section itself, is without prejudice to any other liability. Section 611(2) of the Act reads thus : "Any document required or authorised by this Act to be filed or registered, or any fact required or authorised by this Act to be registered, with the Registrar on payment of the fee specified therefor in Schedule X, may, without prejudice to any other liability, be filed or registered after the time, if any, specified in this Act for its filing or registration on payment of such additional fee not exceeding ten times the amount of the fee so specified as the Registrar may determine". The additional fee contemplated under this sub-section is not a fine or penalty. It is only in the nature of a reve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ivate Ltd., In re) [1970] 40 Comp. Cas. 130 (Mad.) Krishnaswamy Reddy J. of the Madras High Court observed that for invoking section 633(1) of the Act, criminal intention is irrelevant, that what is relevant is whether the accused acted honestly, namely, in good faith, and whether he had any justifiable reason to escape from the liability and that this section cannot be equated with a discharge or acquittal provided under the Criminal Procedure Code. In Hanuman Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State [1969] 39 Comp. Cas. 777 (All.) Trivedi J. of the Allahabad High Court held that the demand for additional fees under section 611(2) is a revenue demand and is neither a prosecution nor a punishment by a court of law so as to fall within the mischief .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X