9911796707
TMI BlogWhen directors can be treated as 'officer who is in default' under section 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th January, 1994 of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils & Laminates Ltd., for information (see Annex). 2. The issue relating to correct interpretation of 'officer who is in default', as per provision of section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956, has been considered by the Department in the light of the abovesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. The Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecial Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the offence under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Companies Act'). At the relevant time, all the four petitioners are said to be the directors of Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils & Laminates Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act. Mr. P.C. Maheshwari was the managing director of the said company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for non-compliance of the requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 220, the company and every officer of the company, who is in default, is liable to the punishment. Section 5 of the Companies Act defines 'officer who is in default' and ft provides as under : '5. Meaning of "officer who is in default" - For the purpose of any provision in this Act which enacts that a officer of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs who may be specified by the Board in this behalf or where no director is so specified, all the directors: Provided that where the Board exercises any powers under clause (f) or clause (g), it shall, within thirty days of the exercise of such powers, file with the Registrar a return in the prescribed form." The above definition of the 'officer who is in default' makes it clear that a director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the complaint to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. See R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and Madhu Limaye's case AIR 1987 SC 47. The result of the above discussions is that this petition deserves to be allowed and it is, hereby, allowed. The criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Complaint No. 47/91 are quashed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
