TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to be excused from liability under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of the sixth show-cause notice alleging contravention of sections 211(1) and (2) and 628 of that Act; (ii) whether the notice could sustain proceedings under section 628 in the absence of any specific allegation of making a false statement knowingly or suppressing a material fact knowingly.
Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to be excused from liability under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of the sixth show-cause notice alleging contravention of sections 211(1) and (2) and 628 of that Act.
Analysis: The relevant prosecution for contravention of sections 211(1) and (2) had become barred by limitation, and the court could take that circumstance into account while considering relief under section 633(2). The surrounding facts showed that the authorities had already proceeded on the basis of the same inspection material, had later warned the company, and had not shown any independent scrutiny establishing deliberate suppression. In these circumstances, the exercise of discretion under section 633(2) ought to extend to the sixth notice as well.
Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to be excused from liability under section 633(2) in respect of the sixth show-cause notice.
Issue (ii): Whether the notice could sustain proceedings under section 628 in the absence of any specific allegation of making a false statement knowingly or suppressing a material fact knowingly.
Analysis: An accusation that can lead to penal consequences must clearly disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. The notice contained no specific assertion that any appellant had knowingly made a false statement or knowingly suppressed a material fact. Mere reference to excise settlement or alleged accounting irregularities was insufficient to attract section 628, particularly when dishonest intent was not specifically alleged.
Conclusion: The sixth show-cause notice did not disclose the ingredients of an offence under section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Final Conclusion: The appellate court extended the protective relief to the appellants for the sixth notice also and interfered with the refusal of the company court to grant that relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Relief under section 633(2) may be granted where the alleged prosecution is time-barred and the notice fails to state the essential ingredients of the penal offence with clarity and specificity.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
