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 proceedings arising from the show-cause notices were barred by limitation so as to justify relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) Whether the petitioners had failed to take reasonable steps to secure compliance with the statutory requirements, or otherwise incurred liability warranting refusal of relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
Issue (i): Whether the proceedings arising from the show-cause notices were barred by limitation so as to justify relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis: The application was treated as maintainable for considering exoneration under section 633(2), but the Court held that the relevant alleged offences carried short maximum punishments and attracted the limitation regime under sections 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the facts, the complaints and proposed prosecutions related to financial years long prior to the date on which the application was moved, and the filing of the section 633(2) application did not suspend limitation under section 470(2). The Court therefore concluded that cognizance of the alleged offences had become time-barred.
Conclusion: The limitation objection was accepted and the petitioners were entitled to relief on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners had failed to take reasonable steps to secure compliance with the statutory requirements, or otherwise incurred liability warranting refusal of relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis: The allegations concerned preparation of accounts, notes to accounts, employee disclosures, and disclosure of directorships. The Court found that the statements and reports were prepared and audited on professional advice, that the company had furnished explanations to the departmental objections, and that the materials did not establish failure to take reasonable steps. The Court further held that the requisite mental element, including intention, negligence, or recklessness, was absent on the material placed before it.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not shown to have incurred liability warranting denial of relief and were entitled to be excused.
Final Conclusion: Relief under section 633(2) was granted, and the petitioners were discharged from the offences alleged in the show-cause notices.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the High Court may grant relief where the alleged prosecution is already time-barred under the criminal limitation provisions and the materials do not establish absence of reasonable care or the necessary culpable mental element.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
