TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1941 (8) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osecution under section 32 of the Indian Companies Act. It is said that the petitioner was the managing director. At any rate he has been convicted and fined under section 76 of the Act on an allegation that he was wilfully a party to a default by which no general meeting was held during the year which commenced on the 14th of February 1937. He was then further prosecuted under section 32. I cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....available days which ought to have been selected by the petitioner for the purpose of submitting this report. He was unable to give any answer and, as far as I can see, the petitioner has been punished for his failure to do something which it was impossible for him to do In support of the conviction Mr. Bannerjee relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Park v. Lawton [1911]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e whether the conduct of the petitioner amounted to knowingly or wilfully authorising or permitting the default. He approached the case as though it was one in which the meeting had been held and the petitioner wilfully or knowingly permitted the default under section 32. But it was in fact impossible to comply with that section. The only way in which the conviction could be upheld is to accept th....