9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g clearly that if they do not establish that the report of the Commission as against them is incorrect, proceedings will be continued against them also as if they have contravened the provisions of the Act. The direction of the Commission in Ext.P3 that the proceedings before the Commission will be continued as if the petitioners have nothing to say in the matter is also, therefore, in order. The materials on record indicate that the proceedings commenced pursuant to the complaint preferred by the second respondent is yet to be over. A final decision on the issue as to whether the opposite parties in the complaint have contravened the provisions of the Act will be rendered by the Commission only when it disposes of the complaint - The scheme of the Act does not contemplate two separate proceedings against the opposite parties as also against the office bearers of the opposite parties who are liable to be proceeded under Section 48 of the Act. The proceedings under the Act, going by its scheme, is a composite one. As such, the guilt, if any, of the persons who come under Section 48 of the Act also needs to be examined simultaneous to the guilt of the opposite parties. Conclusion - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or through their duly authorised representatives on 3.2.2016. Opposite parties, 1, 2, 6 and 7 were also directed as per the said order to file their financial statements for the preceding three years. By Ext.P2 order, the Commission also directed the petitioners to file their income tax returns for the preceding three years. The petitioners did not appear in person before the Commission on 3.2.2016 nor did they file their income-tax returns as directed in Ext.P2 order. Since the opposite parties and others in the complaint to whom copies of the report of the Director General were forwarded as per Ext.P2 order sought time to file objections to the report, the hearing of the case was adjourned to 10.3.2016. The petitioners did not appear before the Commission on 10.3.2016 as well. The hearing proposed on the report of the Director General as per Ext.P2 order was, however, re- scheduled to 21.4.2016. The petitioners did not appear before the Commission on 21.4.2016 also. In the circumstances, the parties who appeared before the Commission were heard in part on 21.4.2016 and the hearing was concluded on 27.4.2016. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Commission on 27.4.2016. Since the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or order made or direction issued thereunder is a company, every person, who at the time of the commission of contravention, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of his business, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against the punished accordingly. The proviso to Section 48(1) of the Act clarifies that nothing contained in Section 48(1) of the Act shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such contravention. Section 48 (2) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule, regulation, order made or direction issued thereunder has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the petitioners has been made out, notices have been issued to the petitioners as well as per Ext.P2 order with a view to proceed against them for having contravened the provisions of the Act. Ext.P2 order of the Commission is, therefore, perfectly in order and the same does not affect the rights of the petitioners in any manner. 8. The fact that the petitioners have neither filed objections to the report submitted by the Director General nor did not appear before the Commission for the hearing proposed on the report, is not in dispute. It is seen that in the notices issued to the petitioners dated 23.12.2015, it was categorically mentioned that in case the petitioners do not file their objections against the report, it will be presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and the Commission will proceed with the complaint on that basis, indicating clearly that if they do not establish that the report of the Commission as against them is incorrect, proceedings will be continued against them also as if they have contravened the provisions of the Act. The direction of the Commission in Ext.P3 that the proceedings before the Commission will be continued as if the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
