2015 (6) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioners for violation of the provisions of Section 205/205A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. The main allegations inter alia raised by the respondent No.1 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari on 3rd November, 1999 were (a) that petitioner No. 1 is a company and petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 being the directors of the company are liable for the default committed under Section 205/205A of the Act. It is alleged that for the year 1995-96 petitioner No.1 declared an interim dividend @12.5% which was to be paid within 42 days from the date of declaration and the petitioner failed to make payment within the stipulated time. 3. The complaint filed by respondent No.1 was based on a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be determined with reference to the offence, which is punishable with more severe or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. 5. Section 205/205A of the Act and punishment under Section 207 of the Act prior to the amendment w.e.f 13th December, 2000, the penalty under Section 207 of the Act for failure to distribute the dividends within 42 days reads as under "Where a dividend has been declared by a company but has not been paid, or the warrant in respect thereof has not been posted, within forty two days from the date of the declaration, to any shareholder entitled to the payment of the dividend, every director of the company; its managing agent or secretaries and treasurers; and where the managing agent is a firm or body corpora .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mehra vs. Registrar of Companies (1991) 71 Comp Cas 669 (Delhi). In NEPC India Ltd & Ors. vs Registrar of Companies (1999) 97 Comp Cas 500 held that in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C the complaint under Section 207 of the Act ought to have been filed within one year prima facie it was clear that the complaint was time barred. iii) It is also observed that the respondent No.1 has not filed any application for condonation of delay. It has been held in Hindustan Wire And Metal Products (1983) 54 Comp. Cas 104(Cal.) and in S.P. Punj (supra) that without the condonation of delay cognizance of the offence cannot be taken and that unless the bar of limitation was lifted by condonation of delay through an order of the magistrate under Section 473 Cr.P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X