9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Single Judge, the court could not exercise discretionary power in favour of the petitioners. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appeal does not carry merit and it is liable to be dismissed. - O.S.A. NO. 260 OF 2002† - - - Dated:- 1-7-2008 - M. CHOCKALINGAM AND R. SUBBIAH, JJ. R. Senthil Kumar for the Appellant. M. Jegadeesan for the Respondent. JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J. - The challenge in this appeal is to the order of dismissal of C.P. No. 265 of 2001 [ Farouk Irani v. Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction [2002] 110 Comp. Cas. 64 1 (Mad.)], by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petitioners request to exercise the discretion of the court under section 63 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, the show-cause notice referred to above was served upon the petitioners. Apprehending the criminal action pursuant to the show-cause notice, the company petition was brought before this Court. 3. On enquiry, the learned Single Judge has taken a view that it was not a fit case where the discretionary power vested upon the court could be exercised in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, the company petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal has arisen at the instance of the petitioners. 4. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel would submit that their company, which has been functioning for nearly about three decades, at no point of time, had been found with any fault. The returns for the years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners. Apart from that, a revised return was also placed. Under such circumstances, merely because the mistakes are found or crept in the returns, it cannot be said that it was a fit case for launching prosecution, but in the instant case, they are found to be bona fide mistakes and hence it is a fit case where the court should exercise its discretionary powers in favour of the appellants and thus they should be relieved from launching the prosecution. 5. Contrary to the above contentions, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in the instant case, 20 violations were noticed and many of them were the violations of mandatory provisions and thus, in a given case, once they violated the mandatory provisions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000, but they have sent the communication on 9-8-2000. In the opinion of the court, such a communication addressed to the Registrar of Companies itself will not be construed as a rectification of the mistakes. But the revised return was filed only on 13-6-2001, nearly after one year from the date of inspection report. Further, in the instant case, the returns were filed for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 on 3-7-1997, 18-5-1998 and 21-5-1999, respectively, and they were of the period of nearly three years. So far as the violations, as could be seen from the report, are concerned, there were nearly 20 violations and most of them were the violations of mandatory provisions and at no stretch of imagination, the violation of mandatory provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
