TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (5) TMI 958
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p the matter only on 16-12-1998. No explanation whatsoever has been given for the appellant's inaction during this period of nine months. The observation of this Court in State of UP v. Bahadur Singh AIR 1983 SC 845 regarding the latitude to be shown to the Government in deciding questions of delay, does not give a licence to the Officers of the Government to shirk their responsibility to act with reasonable expedition. However, since the matter has been permitted to be argued on merits, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay, but our disapproval of the conduct of the appellant in this regard will be reflected in the costs which we intend to award against the appellant in favour of the respondents, irrespec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with find which may extend to Rs. 500 for every day during which the default continues. In addition to this criminal liability for punishment, under section 113(3) a person entitled to have the shares delivered to him, may apply to the CLB for a directive on the company to deliver the certificates or the debentures to the complainant. The CLB is authorised to pass an order directing the company and any officer of the company 'to make good the default' within such time as may be specified and also provide for the costs of and incidental to the application to be paid to the complainant by the company or any officer of the company who may be responsible for the def....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itation.-(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence,- (a )on the date of the offence; or (b)where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier." 8. It is unnecessary to decide whether the offence under section 113 of the Companies Act is a continuing one under section 472 of the Cr. PC on the facts of this case. Even if the offences were a continuing one, the offence, if any, continued upto the date when the deliveries were in fact effected under section 113, viz., on 6-4-1991 and 16-4-1991. As the offence of delayed del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 56 ; Sushil Kumar Lahiri v. Registrar of Companies [1983] 53 Comp. Cas. 54 with reference to section 113. 12. As far as the decision of the Gujarat High Court is concerned, it dealt with the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1967, the provisions of which are not before us. As far as the decision of the High Court of Madras is concerned, the decision of the learned Single Judge in Sulochana's case (supra) has been expressly over-ruled by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Abdul Rahim v. State represented by the Chit Registrar Nagapattinam 1978 (1) L.W. Crl. 195. The Division Bench has held that the Registrar of Chits was a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of section 469(1)(b) and was competent to init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s or allot the shares, then the only 'person aggrieved' would be the transferee or the allottee, as the case may be. Under section 621, no Court can take cognizance of an offence against the Companies Act except on the complaint of a shareholder, the Registrar or the person duly authorised by the Central Government. Where the transferee or allottee is not an existing shareholder of the company, if the words 'person aggrieved' is read in such a limited manner, it would mean that section 469(1)(b) of the Cr. PC would be entirely inapplicable to offences under section 113. There is, in any event, no justification to interpret the words 'person aggrieved' as used in section 469(1)(b) restrictively particularly when, as in this case, the statute....