Summoning orders must show judicial mind and the exact penal provision; a cursory order was quashed.

A summoning order under the Companies Act was held unsustainable where it did not disclose application of judicial mind to the complaint or the penal provision invoked. The order merely issued a cursory direction without naming the accused, stating their parentage, or identifying the specific offence, despite the complaint alleging breach of section 129 and penal liability under section 129(7). A summoning order must be a reasoned judicial order that shows consideration of the allegations and the relevant statutory provision. The High Court quashed the summoning order and remitted the matter for a proper judicial order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order was liable to be quashed for non-application of judicial mind and for not disclosing the names of the accused or the specific penal provision invoked under the Companies Act.

Analysis: The complaint was stated to have been filed for alleged breach of section 129 of the Companies Act, attracting penal consequences under section 129(7), but the summoning order merely recorded a cursory direction without specifying the accused persons, their parentage, or the exact offence for which they were being summoned. The order did not reflect consideration of the complaint or the relevant penal provision and showed no application of judicial mind. A summoning order must be a judicial order supported by reasons and must indicate that the Magistrate has applied mind to the allegations and the legal provision invoked.

Conclusion: The summoning order was quashed and the matter was remitted for passing a proper judicial order.

Ratio Decidendi: A summoning order that does not disclose application of judicial mind to the complaint and the applicable penal provision is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---