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>State Appeals Acquittal: Importance of Prosecution Sanction under Indian Companies Act</h1> The State appealed against the respondents' acquittal due to the absence of proper prosecution sanction under the Indian Companies Act. The Assistant ... Company – Incorporation of Issues:1. Proper sanction for prosecution under the Indian Companies Act.2. Interpretation of Regulation 14 (a) and (b) concerning the authority to file complaints.3. Validity of the complaint filed by the Assistant Registrar.4. Consideration of petition by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.Analysis:1. The appeal was made by the State against the acquittal of the respondents due to the lack of proper sanction for the prosecution under sections 76 and 131 of the Indian Companies Act. The complaint against the respondents was initiated by the Assistant Registrar at the behest of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. The issue revolved around the necessity of a valid sanction for prosecution under the Act.2. The Central Government, under section 248(2) of the Indian Companies Act, has the authority to appoint registrars and assistant registrars for company registration and to make regulations regarding their duties. Regulation 14 (a) empowers the Registrar to conduct inquiries and investigations deemed necessary for the Act's administration and to initiate prosecutions for non-compliance. Regulation 14 (b) stipulates that the State Counsel or District Magistrate must take steps to enforce penal provisions when necessary.3. The Assistant Registrar had written to the District Magistrate requesting action against the respondents, but the District Magistrate did not act on it. The lower court believed that a complaint from the District Magistrate or at his instance was essential for prosecution under Regulation 14 (b). However, the judgment clarified that any citizen, member of the company, or the Assistant Registrar could validly file a complaint under the Companies Act.4. The respondents submitted a petition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate explaining the reasons for the delayed meeting. The lower court was directed to consider the petition's content and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. The judgment set aside the acquittal based on the lack of proper sanction and remanded the case for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
