TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the criminal proceedings for alleged non-delivery of share certificates were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the alleged default under section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation. (iii) Whether the proceedings could be proceeded with against the directors and chairman as persons responsible for compliance with the Companies Act, 1956.
Issue (i): Whether the criminal proceedings for alleged non-delivery of share certificates were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, and the allegations were neither absurd nor inherently improbable. At the stage of issuing process, the court was not required to conduct a detailed trial of the merits. Inherent jurisdiction could be used only where there was abuse of process, frivolity, vexation, or a fundamental legal defect. The accused also had an available remedy before the Magistrate when appearing in response to process.
Conclusion: The proceedings were not liable to be quashed under section 482, and the contention was against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the alleged default under section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The statutory language of section 113(2), which provides punishment with fine for every day during which the default continues, shows that the default is treated as continuing in nature. On that basis, the bar of limitation could not be accepted in relation to the alleged non-delivery of share certificates.
Conclusion: The complaint was not barred by limitation, and this issue was against the petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether the proceedings could be proceeded with against the directors and chairman as persons responsible for compliance with the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis: The concept of an "officer in default" under section 5 depended on the actual office held, the company's documents, and the factual position as to who was responsible for compliance. Whether the managing director, whole-time director, manager, or other directors fell within that description was a matter requiring evidence. The stage was not appropriate for finally excluding the directors from the proceedings on that basis.
Conclusion: The proceedings against the directors and chairman were not liable to be terminated at this stage, and the issue was against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing was declined, but the court directed that the personal attendance of the directors should not be insisted upon and left jurisdictional and other factual issues to be pursued before the trial court in the manner indicated.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is not to be exercised where the complaint discloses the essential ingredients of the offence and the alleged default is, by statute, of a continuing character; factual questions concerning responsibility of directors must ordinarily be left for trial.
TaxTMI 
