TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner is briefly stated hereunder : According to the petitioner, he is the managing director of M/s. Kwality Spinning Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as "company"). The com- pany was incorporated as a private limited company on June 26, 1958, and has become a public limited company by virtue of the provisions of section 43A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, with effect from December 30, 1989. Under section 233B of the Companies Act, it is provided for an audit of cost accounts in certain cases. The Central Government in exercise of their powers given under section 233B(4) read with section 27(1) and 642(1)(b) of the Companies Act, framed the Cost Audit (Report) Rules, 1968. As per the provisions from the Companies Act and the Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany is required to submit the cost audit report under section 233B of the Act read with Cost Audit (Report) Rules, 1968, within 120 days by the cost auditor appointed by the company with the prior approval of the Central Government. It is further stated that there was some difficulty on the part of the company to give all the records to the cost auditor due to labour problem in the company resulting in stoppage of the work and fall in production. The company received a letter dated May 30, 1995, from the cost auditor requesting the company to seek for extension of time by two months for submission of cost audit report. Pursuant to the said letter, the company sought for extension of time up to August 31, 1995. The cost auditor also by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner. It is stated that the time-limit for rendition of report prescribed under rule 4 is only 120 days. The petitioner company's request dated June 30, 1995, and the cost auditor's request dated July 10, 1995, for extension of time for submitting the cost audit report have been declined by the Central Government, consequently no extension of time has been allowed to the company. As the reply is not satisfactory and convincing, the respondent officer has preferred a complaint under section 233B(11) before the Judicial Magistrate Court I, Pollachi on June 5, 1996. After filing of the complaint, this petition is not maintainable and the remedy is that the petitioner should prefer a petition under section 633(1) before the Judicia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the above-referred provisions, the company has to furnish records within 90 days from the end of the financial year to the auditor and the auditor will have further 90 days time to submit his report to the Company Law Board and to the company. The Rules provide for penalties to the company and the cost auditor. It is stated that there was a delay of 24 days in filing the report by the cost auditor before the Company Law Board. Pursuant to the show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the cost audit report for the years ending December 31, 1993, and December 31, 1994, has not been submitted in time, the petitioner submitted his explanation that the cost audit report has already been filed before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffect from 3.25 p.m. on January 25, 1995, unconditionally. The said communication to the Labour Officer proves that there was a labour problem for a particular period. It is also brought to my notice the letter of the cost accountant dated May 30, 1995, addressed to the company wherein he has requested the company to apply to the Company Law Board for an extension of two months time for submission of cost records for the year ended March 31, 1995, to the cost auditor. The letter dated June 3, 1995, addressed to the Director (Cost), Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi, shows that after highlighting the last date for submission of the records and report, they informed that during the relevant years there had been interm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ault, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust, he may apply to the High Court for relief and the High Court on such application shall have the same power to relieve him as it would have had if it had been a Court before which a proceeding against that officer for negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust had been brought under sub-section (1)." Though it is contended by the learned senior Central Government standing counsel that this court is not the appropriate authority, in the light of the said provision, I am unable to accept the said contention. As a matter of fact, if any notice is received for negligence, breach of duty, miscompliance or breach of trust and any application is made before this court....