TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Complaints under Companies Act, 1956 dismissed as time-barred.</h1> The court held that the complaints filed under sections 62 and 63 of the Companies Act, 1956 were barred by limitation. The complaints should have been ... Prospectus - Criminal liability for mis-statement in Issues:Complaints filed under sections 62 and 63 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Commencement of limitation period for filing complaints.Analysis:The complaints were filed against the petitioners for alleged offences under sections 62 and 63 of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaints related to defaults committed by the petitioners as directors of a company when annual returns were filed on specific dates in 1992 and 1994. The limitation for filing the complaints would be three years under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The crucial issue to be determined was the date on which the limitation period commenced.The complaints stated that an inspection of the company's books of account and records was ordered in 1998, completed in August 1998, and the report was submitted to the Registrar of Companies. The court referred to the principle that actionable knowledge is attributable to the person aggrieved when the report of inspection listing deficiencies is submitted to the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, the complaints should have been filed by August 2001, but they were filed much later in February 2002. The argument that the Registrar of Companies needed time to consider deficiencies before filing complaints was rejected, emphasizing that the limitation period is intended to allow parties to sort out matters before resorting to legal action.The court highlighted that the limitation period for criminal offences is three years for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. It was emphasized that the complainant must decide within this period whether to proceed with legal action. The court dismissed the argument that the time spent by the complainant to form an opinion on proceeding under penal law should be excluded from the limitation period, stating that such exclusion is not provided for by the statute.In a reference to a previous decision, the court clarified that the issue of limitation in the present case was not a mixed question of law and fact. Ultimately, the court held that the complaints were barred by limitation, and consequently, the petitions were allowed, the cognizance of complaints was quashed, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
