Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
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>Company Conviction Upheld for Share Capital Non-Disclosure</h1> The court upheld the conviction of the company and its directors for failing to give notice of an increase in share capital to the Registrar as required ... Share capital - Notice of increase of Issues:Failure to give notice of increase in share capital to the Registrar as required under section 97(1) and (2) of the Companies Act.Analysis:The case involved an application in revision by a company and its directors against an order sentencing them for not giving notice of increase in share capital to the Registrar as required by law. The company had passed a special resolution increasing its share capital from Rs. 25,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000. The Registrar alleged that the company and its officers failed to file the necessary notice of increase of capital within the prescribed time, despite admitting the increase. The trial court found the petitioners guilty, and the Sessions Judge rejected their appeal.The main contention raised was whether the company had effectively increased its share capital as per the legal provisions. The argument was centered on the interpretation of sections 94 and 97 of the Companies Act. Section 97 mandates that a notice of increase in share capital must be given to the Registrar within 15 days of passing the resolution authorizing the increase. The form for this notice (Form No. 6) also requires details of the new shares, even if they have not been issued yet. The court highlighted that the mere creation of new shares, without necessarily offering or allotting them, constitutes an increase in share capital as per the Act.The court referred to previous judgments to support its interpretation that the creation of new shares, even if not offered or allotted, amounts to an increase in share capital. The company had been showing the increased share capital in its returns since 1960, albeit not in the prescribed form or with the required fee. Considering this, the court reduced the fines imposed on the petitioners but maintained their conviction. The petitioners were directed to file the necessary return with the Registrar within a specified timeframe and were allowed one month to deposit the fines.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
