9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956. The complainant has stated that accused Nos. 2 to 6 are the directors/managing director/whole-time director/company secretary and officers of the company when the offence was committed as per the particulars filed in the office of the complainant and these officers, were in default within the meaning of section 5 of the Act. According to the provisions of section 220 of the Act, the company and its directors are under a statutory obligation to file with the complainant the balance-sheet and profit and loss account in the prescribed form duly placed in the annual general meeting within 30 days from the said date, i.e., on or before 30-10-2006 and in case no annual general meeting was held with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he company. The petitioner received no further communication from the Registrar of Companies. Similarly, the petitioner has received another notice dated 29-6-2000, from the Registrar of Companies requiring the company to pay penalty for not holding the annual general meeting. The petitioner had replied to this show-cause notice vide his letter dated 22-7-2000, stating that he had resigned from the board, long back, and in any case, he was only a non-executive director. Thereafter, there has been no communication from the Registrar of Companies. Similar notices were issued in the years 2001 and 2005 and the petitioner had replied to these notices appropriately. 5. The petitioner has stated that every time such notices were sent, he had app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any as early as on 13-3-1998, the respondent had not taken his resignation into consideration. The counter statements filed by the respondent is also considered. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court feels that due to non-application of mind by the respondent the petitioner has been arrayed as the third accused in EOCC No. 114 of 2007 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Egmore, Chennai. Hence, the court is warranted to interfere with the proceedings in EOCC No. 114 of 2007, and quash the same as against the petitioner/third accused alone. 9. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. This court further directs th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
