1979 (10) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uments in this case. Obviously, this petition has been filed frivolously and vexatiously with a view to protract the proceedings and gain breathing time for the attempt the petitioners are said to be making to get an exemption from the operation of section 58A(4) and 58A(5) of the Companies Act (which shall hereafter be referred to as "the Act"), under which this complaint has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners, who kept us waiting for about nearly 40 minutes before making his appearance, wants this petition to be posted to another date for the purpose of consulting his clients and withdrawing the petition. However, having regard to the importance of the question raised in this petition and the possibility of similar petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpany as on March 31, 1976, as required under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, it appears that the deposits covered under rule 3(2)( i ) of the said Rules amounted to Rs. 1,007 thousands and the deposits renewed during the year, viz ., renewal of existing deposits as per company's letter dated May 27, 1977, amounted to Rs. 912 thousands. As Rs. 16,000 was repaid from out of the amounts deposited prior to the period, the balance of deposits outstanding at the end of the year was a sum of Rs. 991 thousands. The total amount of deposits repayable during the year was Rs. 90,000. Thus, the deposits covered under rule 3(2)( ii ) are in excess of 25% of the aggregate of the paid-up capital and free reserves less ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from the date of acceptance of such deposit. As A-2 to A-6 have failed to make repayment of the deposits as required under section 58A(4) of the Act, they are alleged to have rendered themselves liable for punishment under section 58A(5)( b ) of the Act. To quash these proceedings, the first two accused have filed this petition contending that no fresh deposits were received as alleged by the complainant and that only the old deposits were renewed. It is further contended that the prosecution is barred by limitation. There is no force in the first contention, because when the deposits matured prior to the relevant date or even thereafter, the amounts should have been repaid to the depositors. Instead of repaying the amount, the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X