TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (11) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant Registrar of Companies against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences) No. II, Madras, acquitting the company in C. C. No. 1739 of 1982 on his file. The Registrar of Companies laid a complaint under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, against accused No. 1, Sudarsan Liners Ltd., accused No. 2, V. V. K. Raman, managing director, and accused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assistant Registrar challenges the order of acquittal in so far as accused No. 1 is concerned. A reading of section 220(3) of the Companies Act shows that if default is made in complying with the requirements of sections 220(1) and 220(2), the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be liable to like punishment as is provided in section 162. Even though the learned tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(3) do not provide for exempting any one from punishment, the company or its directors, even if sufficient reasons are given for their non-filing of the balance-sheet and profit and loss account in time. As pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, mere default in complying with the requirements of section 220(1) and (2) is sufficient to make the company and the officers of the company lia....