Company directors' complaint quashed for non-filing E Form 5 INV under Section 205C - defective show cause notice

The HC quashed a complaint filed against company directors for failing to file E Form 5 INV under Section 205C of Companies Act 1956. The complaint alleged non-filing of the form regarding unclaimed dividend amounts of Rs. 10,00,000. The court found that petitioners had timely replied to the show cause notice dated 21.07.2014, contrary to allegations. The HC held the show cause notice was defective as it merely reproduced statutory provisions without specifying the particular default. The respondent's failure to consider petitioners' replies constituted non-application of mind, depriving them of valid defense. The petition was allowed and complaint deemed unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice.
2. Requirement of filing E Form 5 INV.
3. Consideration of the Petitioners' Replies.
4. Prematurity of the Prosecution.
5. Specificity of the Show Cause Notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The petitioners argued that the show cause notice dated 21.07.2014 was silent on the period and specific amounts under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-Section (2) of Section 205C of the Companies Act, 1956, which were not credited to the Investors Education and Protection Fund. The court found that the show cause notice was defective as it merely reproduced part of Section 205C without specifying the exact offence committed by the petitioners. This ambiguity deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to give a proper reply, making the complaint unsustainable.

2. Requirement of filing E Form 5 INV:
The respondent contended that the petitioners were required to submit and upload details of unpaid dividends on their website and the Ministry's website through E Form 5 INV annually. The petitioners failed to do so, leading to the filing of the complaint. The court noted that the Investors Education and Protection Fund (uploading of information regarding unpaid and unclaimed amounts lying with companies) Rules, 2012, mandated this requirement. However, the court also acknowledged that the amounts referred to in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 205C would only form part of the fund if they remained unclaimed and unpaid for seven years.

3. Consideration of the Petitioners' Replies:
The petitioners submitted that they had replied to the show cause notice, but their replies were not considered. The court found that the petitioners had indeed sent replies within the stipulated time, but these were not taken into account by the respondent. The court referred to previous judgments, which held that non-consideration of replies amounted to non-application of mind, making the complaint liable to be quashed.

4. Prematurity of the Prosecution:
The petitioners argued that unpaid dividends should not form part of the Investors Education and Protection Fund until seven years had elapsed from the date they became due. The court noted that the dividend in question was for the period ending 31.03.2013, and thus, giving a show cause notice before the completion of seven years and launching the prosecution was premature and illegal. However, the court clarified that Section 205C dealt with amounts liable to be credited to the fund and that the rule requiring annual uploading of information was to inform interested persons to claim the amount.

5. Specificity of the Show Cause Notice:
The court found that the show cause notice was not specific about which amount among those listed in Section 205C was liable to be credited to the Investors Education and Protection Fund. The notice's ambiguity hindered the petitioners from providing a proper reply, contributing to the complaint's unsustainability.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the show cause notice was defective, and the non-consideration of the petitioners' replies amounted to non-application of mind. Consequently, the complaint was deemed unsustainable in law. The Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P. No.28705 of 2015 was allowed, and the complaint in EO CC No.199 of 2015 was quashed.

---