2013 (10) TMI 948

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-I), Ernakulam.   2. The delation against the 1st revision petitioner company was that it increased its share capital from Rs. 13.5 crores to Rs. 19 crores but failed to file notice in Form No. 5 for the increase of the share capital, and to pay requisite fee and additional fee, within 30 days of passing the resolution increasing the share capital, as contemplated under Section 611 read with Schedule 10 of the Companies Act, 1956. The second revision petitioner is the Managing Director of the 1st respondent company. The petitioners were prosecuted for the offence under Section 97 (3) of the Companies Act, 1956 in the said circumstances. Having found the petitioners guilty, they w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned Counsel prays and submits that the amount of fine imposed on the petitioners as per Annexure-B may be appropriately interfered with. It is evident that though belatedly, the revision petitioners have filed Form No. 5 for the increased share capital and Annexure C would reveal that requisite fee and additional fee, as contemplated in Sec. 611 r/w. Schedule 10 of the Companies Act 1956, have been paid.   6. The courts below have concurrently found the revision petitioners guilty and convicted them for the offence u/s. 97 (3) of the Companies Act, 1956. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial court as also the appellate court. Exts. P1 to P13 were marked on the side of the prosecution to prove the charge agains....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellate court, on examination found it fit to interfere with the penalty which was imposed on the petitioners viz. Rs. 3,32,500 each it was reduced to Rs. 1,66,250/- each. The direction to pay cost to the tune of Rs.32,500/- each by the revision petitioners was not interfered with by the appellate court. As already noticed hereinbefore, while bringing to this court the factum of filing of Form No.5 for the increased share capital as also the remittance of Rs. 4,16,517/- towards fee and additional fee the learned counsel for the petitioners sought only for interference with the quantum of fine contending that even after the interference by the appellate court it remains to be excessive. Considering the above submissions as also the ....