9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Acts. 2.The petitioners submit that not being directors with any functional responsibility, they cannot be officers who are in default under section 5 of the Companies Act, in any case. 3.To direct Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, to desist from instituting or continuing proceedings under the Companies Act against the petitioners, with particular reference to the impugned notices Annexures 1 and 2. 4.To issue such order or directions as the Hon ble Court may deem proper in their wisdom and experience in the special circumstances of this case, which the petitioners may have failed to mention but merit still. 5. Ad interim orders in terms of prayers 1 to 4 . Above may also kindly be passed. 6.Such further order or orders b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced any material on the record that the management of the company had been taken over by the RIICO after 26th of March, 1988. Otherwise also I have my own reservation whether the RIICO could have taken the management of the Company. The RIICO for non-payment of the dues or for some other default, may take possession of the Unit or other property of the Company but not the management of the Company. 3. The Company has made defaults in making the compliance of the provisions of sections 159, 160, 210 and 220 of the Act, 1956 for the years 1988 to 1998 the respondent, the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, sent notices to the petitioners which were received by them on 15-7-1999. The petitioners were called upon to show cause a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of the Act, 1956. The petitioners are just two out of five Directors and being old persons they may not be put to suffer this agony at the ends of the respondent. 6. It is unfortunate that none is present on behalf of the respondent. However, the respondent has filed reply to the petition. The facts disclosed in the reply are that the petitioners were appointed Directors of the Company on 1st of October, 1982 and 19th of May, 1985 respectively. As per the last annual return dated 31st of October, 1986 available with the respondent the petitioners stand at Nos. 1 and 2 in the list of Directors of the Company. 7. I have given my thoughtful and anxious consideration to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Directors of the Company as on day. 11. This plea taken also deserves outright rejection yet on another ground. The RIICO has taken over the management of the Company in the year 1988. In case what it is stated would have been correct the first and foremost step on the part of the petitioners would have been to resign from the office of the Directors of the Company. Undisputedly the petitioners have not resigned from the Directorship of the Company. The default in compliance of the provisions of the Act, 1956 pertains to the period from 1988 to 1998 and the fact that they have not resigned from the Directorship, reasonably it can be presumed and assumed that they voluntarily continued as Directors of the Company. Being the Directors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
