TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 876 of 2001. They have prayed for quashing the proceedings in the above case pending on the file of the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore. 2. Complaint was filed by the respondent on 30-8-2001 alleging offences punishable under section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956, against four Directors of petitioners' Company for non-laying of annual return of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners. According to Sri Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that, acceptance of Rs. 4000 as additional fee by respondent amounts to acceptance of the contents of annual return as true and correct. The annual return depicts that meeting was held on 30-9-2000. In other words, he submits that in view of the additional fees charged on the petitioners and which is duly remitted, the retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 31-3-2000. Sri Shanthappa prayed that the petition be dismissed inasmuch as the evidence is necessary to verify the contentions of the petitioners. 6. Along with the memorandum of criminal petition, the petitioner has also produced copy of the Annual Return for the year 1999-2000 and as cash receipt evidencing additional fee paid by the petitioners. These documents are not disputed by the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d returns required by various provisions of the Act. Such default is also a continuing offence for which there is a penalty for every day during which the default continues. In this case, according to the complaint, each of the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 162 of the Companies Act which prescribes fine which may extend to Rs. 500 every day during which default continu....