9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal came out with a public issue of shares and debentures in the year 1992. The said public issue was to commence on June 1, 1992, and scheduled to close on June 11, 1992. The public issue having been oversubscribed it was duly closed on June 4, 1992, being the earliest scheduled date of closing. Under the terms and conditions of the aforesaid allotment, any person could apply for shares and/or debentures. Every applicant was required to pay a sum of Rs. 10 per equity share and a sum of Rs. 200 per debenture, as the case may be. On the closure of the aforesaid public issue a return was filed by the petitioner before the Securities and Exchange Board of India, a statutory body, giving out details regarding the applicants who were given all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re sent by registered post. The demand drafts were sent along with the principal money and interest thereon till February 5, 1994, therefore, the amount of Rs. 3,675 each was sent to complainants Arun Bansal and his wife, Vimlesh Bansal. As the amount was not received in time by the respondent and his wife, the complaint has been filed before the Special Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, alleging therein that the petitioner-company has not refunded the money timely and committed the offence under sections 61, 63, 73 and 113 of the Companies Act, 1956. The trial court has taken cognizance thereof. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid complaint and taking cognizance against the director of the petitioner-company and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, 1994, were sent to the complainant and his wife. The same have been received by the complainant and his wife Vimlesh Bansal. In such circumstances, no offence is made out on the part of the petitioner-company. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company, Shri Kuhad, also submitted that no complaint can be filed for the offence under sections 73, 73(2)(b) and 113 of the Companies Act, 1956, by a person to whom share/ debenture has not been allotted. He drew my attention to the provisions of section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 621 of the Companies Act, reads as under : "621. Offences against Act to be cognizable only on complaint by Registrar, shareholder or Government (1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner-company and is a frivolous complaint, the same has no force. Even on a specific query whether under any law or any section of the Companies Act the complainant is competent to file the complaint, when he is not a shareholder and when there is no dispute regarding payment of the money by the company, counsel for the complainant failed to point out any provision where under such complaint can be entertained. If such proceedings are allowed to continue, then it will be an abuse of the process of the court. In such circumstances and in view of the provisions of section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956, the proceeding in Case No. 59 of 1993, Arun Bansal v. Herdillia Unimers Ltd., before the Special Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
