9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany - thus assessee company are entitled to be excused under Section 633 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956. Accordingly this application is allowed and the opposite party-ROC is directed not to launch any prosecution against the petitioners for the alleged violation of the accounting standards. - CO. PET. NO. 30 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2011 - SHRI L. MOHAPATRA, J. Shri A.K. Parija, Shri S.P. Sarangi, Shri B.C. Mohanty, Shri P.P. Mohanty, Shri D.K. Das, Shri P.K. Dash, Shri R.K. Tripathy, Shri A. Kanungo, Shri A.K. Kanungo and Shri A. Pattnaik for the Petitioner. JUDGMENT 1. This application has been filed under Section 633 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No.1 is the Chairman of OCL India Limited (hereina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Power of Court to grant relief in certain cases. (1) If in any proceeding for negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust against an officer of a company, it appears to the Court hearing the case that he is or may be liable in respect of the negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust, but that he has acted honestly and reasonably, and that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including those connected with his appointment, he ought fairly to be excused, the Court may relieve him, either wholly or partly from his liability on such terms as it may think fit: Provided that in a criminal proceeding under this sub-section, the Court shall have no power to grant relief from any c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought under sub-section (1). Sub-section (3) provides that no Court shall grant any relief to any officer under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) unless the Registrar of the Company is served with a notice to show cause as to why such relief should not be granted. In compliance of sub-section (3) of Section 366, notice was issued to the ROC on 25.7.2008 and the ROC is represented through Ms. Saswata Patnaik in this petition. 3. Coming to the alleged contraventions as mentioned in Annexure-1, it appears that most of the contraventions alleged relate to non-compliance of Accounting Standards. With reference to Section 211 of the Act, Shri A.K. Parija, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that every balance- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained by the petitioners by reason of such alleged defaults. Due diligence has been exercised in auditing the Company's accounts through M/s. V. Sankar Aiyar Company and accounts have been maintained in terms of the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Act. The accounting standards have been complied with as near to Part I and Part II of Schedule VI as circumstances admit and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the protection available to them under Section 633 of the Act. 4. Ms. Saswata Patnaik appearing for the Registrar Companies with reference to Annexure-1 submitted that specific violation of the accounting standards have been indicated in the said letter and the petitioners have not been able to explain under w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raphical error 211(3A) read with Base Date for actuarial Clarification is given that 211(3A) read with AS-6 Depreciation for the year has not been disclosed Disclosure is made as per Part-I Notice No.2 211 read with Part-I of Advances against Capital expenditure Disclosure is made as per Part-I of 211 read with Cash, cheques in hand are Cheques on hand are 211 read with Part-I of Quantity of Resins and Aluminum Quantities are negligible and due to 211 read with Part-I of Schedule Under investments number of shares is not Current year disclosure requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Company. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of BOC India Ltd. the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal in C.P. No.94 of 2007/C.A. No.215 of 2007, disposed of on 16.7.2007. In the said case, two notices issued by the Registrar of Companies threatening criminal proceeding against the petitioners therein were the subject matter of the proceeding before the Calcutta High Court under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. On consideration of the allegations and the replies, the Court was of the view that the contemplated criminal proceedings were not warranted and accordingly allowed the petition. The same view was also expressed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Chan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
