Share certificate default complaints require an aggrieved shareholder, and delayed prosecution without excusing delay is time-barred.

Section 113, as discussed, contemplates action on the application of the person entitled to receive share certificates, so the grievance belongs to the affected shareholder rather than the Registrar of Companies. In the absence of any shareholder complaint or application, prosecution for alleged default in dispatching share certificates is not maintainable at the instance of the Registrar. The text also notes that a delayed complaint for an offence punishable with fine only is liable to be rejected as time-barred where no application to excuse delay is filed and the delay is not otherwise justified. The revision was therefore not examined on merits and the dismissal of the complaint remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint for alleged default in dispatching share certificates was maintainable at the instance of the Registrar of Companies; (ii) whether the complaint was barred by limitation for want of an application to excuse delay.

Issue (i): whether the complaint for alleged default in dispatching share certificates was maintainable at the instance of the Registrar of Companies

Analysis: The statutory scheme of section 113, particularly sub-section (3), contemplates action on the application of the person entitled to receive the certificates. The grievance contemplated by the provision is that of the affected shareholder, not the Registrar of Companies. In the absence of any application or complaint by any shareholder, the prosecution could not be treated as one instituted by an aggrieved party under the provision.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable at the instance of the Registrar of Companies.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint was barred by limitation for want of an application to excuse delay

Analysis: The offence alleged was punishable with fine only, and the complaint was presented long after the statutory period relied upon by the accused. The explanation that the lapse came to notice only on inspection did not justify the delay, especially when no shareholder had invoked the remedial mechanism and no application for excusing delay had been filed under the relevant procedural provision. The Court found no ground to interfere with the trial court's view that the prosecution was time-barred.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The revision was not entertained on merits and the order dismissing the complaint was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory remedy for a default is available on the application of the affected person, prosecution at the instance of an authority not shown to be the aggrieved party is not maintainable, and a delayed complaint without seeking excusal of delay is liable to be rejected as time-barred.

---