Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (6) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ending before the Court below, quashed as not maintainable, and an abuse of process of Court. Mr. V. Sairam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, without referring to or making any submission, with regard to the averments made in paragraph 1 of the petitioner, advanced two contentions: (1) In the absence of any averment in the complaint, that the Annual Meeting of the Company was held, in which the documents had not been placed, the prosecution under S. 210 of the Act cannot be maintained, for the condition precedent to attract the ingredients of the offence would be the holding of a meeting; if a meeting had not been held, the placing of the balance sheet and profit and loss account cannot arise; and (2) The complaint i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore, attracts S. 468(2)(b), Crl.P.C., and the period of limitation will be one year. Even without going into the question of the date of knowledge of the respondent, regarding the alleged commission of offence, the complaint filed before the lower Court on 18-4-86, within one year from 30-9-1985 appears to be, well within time. Though the learned counsel for the respondent submitted, that the computation of the period of limitation of six months, will depend on the date of knowledge of the respondent of the commission of the alleged offence, which may have to be decided during the course of trial, I hold that the complaint is not time barred and this contention of the petitioners will have to be necessarily negatived. In that view, the dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... so placed, the offence is committed. If no annual general meeting is held, as required under S. 166 of the Act, the question of not placing the documents in the meeting would not arise. This offence therefore, can be committed only when a meeting is held and the documents are not placed....In this case the prosecution proceeds on the assumption that the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts should have been laid at the annual general meeting which should have been held on or before 30-9-81. It is not the case of the prosecution that a meeting was held and the balance sheet and profit and loss account, were not placed. Failure to hold a meeting is an offence under S. 166 of the Act. S. 210 of the Act will apply only when a meeting .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot be different because of the presence of a provision like section 76 of the old Act (section 166 of the new Act) which imposed an obligation to hold a general meeting and attached a penalty to a failure to perform that obligation. Though the Supreme Court was considering section 32 of the old Act, it was observed that as in the case of section 32 and for the same reasons, it was no defence to the charge for breach of section 131 (present section 210) to say that a meeting was not called. 5. In the later case (A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2429) the various stages which had to be gone through, before the copy of the balance sheet and the profit and loss account could filed with the Registrar as contemplated under section 134 of the old Companies A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the requirement of S. 134 cannot be complied with. In the said case while holding that an offence under S. 134(4) of the Act was not disclosed, it was noticed, a different offence might have been committed under S. 76(2) or under S. 133(3). 6. The wording of S. 210 of the Companies Act, 1956, which reads At every general meeting of a company held in pursuance of S. 166 naturally takes us to S. 166 of the Act (S. 76 of the old Act), which impose an obligation to hold a meeting and attaches a penalty to a failure to perform that obligation. It will be better to incorporate the observations of the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 S.C. 186: Turning now to S. 131, we And that it requires the directors of a company, once at least in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates