Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners, being directors of the company, could be treated as "officers in default" and held criminally liable for non-compliance with the filing requirements under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, and whether the complaint deserved to be quashed.
Analysis: Section 220(3) fastens liability on the company and every officer in default for default in complying with sub-sections (1) and (2). Section 5 defines "officer who is in default" and includes directors only where the company does not have a managing director, whole-time director, or manager, or in the other situations specified in that provision. On the admitted facts, the company had a managing director at the relevant time. The petitioners were only directors and therefore did not fall within the statutory description of officers in default. Since the complaint, even if taken at face value, did not disclose a case against them, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not liable as officers in default for the alleged default under section 220, and the complaint and criminal proceedings against them were quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Directors are not criminally liable for default under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 unless they fall within the statutory definition of "officer in default"; where the company has a managing director, such liability does not automatically extend to the other directors.