Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (7) TMI 854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the offence punishable under section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act ). It may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief in this petition. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to as arrayed in the complaint. 3. A1 is a public limited company having its registered office at Mumbai; A2 is the Chairman of A1 company; A3 is the managing director, A4 to A6 are the Directors and A7 is the Company Secretary of A1 company. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased hundred shares of Zee Telefilms Ltd. on 24-7-1996 bearing distinctive numbers vide Certificate No. 164197. The said shares were purchased by the complai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e learned Special Judge. 5. It is clearly alleged that A2 is the Chairman of A1 company and being its Chairman he is the key person playing most important role of planning and operations of A1 company and participates in day-to-day affairs and management of the company. The other accused are also alleged to be responsible for the conduct of the operations and administration of A1 company, and therefore, all of them are in charge and responsible to A1 company for the conduct of its business. In the circumstances, they are also liable to be prosecuted and punished, is the case of the complainant. Then substance is the complaint. 6. The accused in this petition deny all the allegations and averments made against them in the complaint. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion that the respondent-companies therein had committed offences punishable under section 113(2). The complainant in the said case is a practising advocate. It was his case that he was a permanent resident of Bangalore and letters requesting the company to transfer the shares and to send memorandum, articles of association, balance sheets etc., were sent from Bangalore to the registered offices of the companies and, therefore, the cause of action also arose at Bangalore. The Karnataka High Court arrived at the conclusion that under the provisions of section 53 of the Act two modes are prescribed for serving the documents, one to serve personally and the other by post. As the documents were sent to the respondent by post, as required by him, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hence the cause of action for default of not sending the share certificates within the stipulated time would arise at the place where the registered office of the company is situated as from that place the share certificates can be posted and are usually posted . If the addressee is available at the same locality where the registered office of the company is situated, it is reasonable to think that service of documents may be effected by personally delivering to him. But if the addressee is residing at a distant place it is unreasonable to expect the company to depute somebody to travel up to that distance to personally deliver it to him. The only usual mode which any company would then adopt is to send it to him by post. For such default, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the above judgment of the Supreme Court, it is held that the learned Special Judge for economic offences at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 12. In this petition, the accused-petitioners have also raised a plea with regard to limitation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and since the question relating to limitation is mixed question of fact and law, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the plea relating to the complaint being barred by limitation may be kept open for adjudication by the trial court. There cannot be any objection whatsoever to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. In the circumstances, no opinion is express .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates