TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hief Metropolitan Magistrate Court (EO-I) Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. 2. Brief case of the petitioners/accused : The facts of the case is that the petitioners/accused were the directors of the company when the offence was committed as per the particulars filed in the office of the complainant and they are officers who are in default within the meaning of section 5 of the Companies Act. The annual general meeting of the company for the financial year March 31, 2006 should have been held latest by September 30, 2006 and the annual return made up to that date should have been filed with the complainant within 60 days from the said date, i. e., on or before November 29, 2006 in case no annual general meeting was held within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the petitioners had filed the application in the format along with the enclosures and also paid the prescribed fees by way of demand draft as per the procedure laid down under the aforesaid circular to strike out the name of the company to the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The copy of acknowledgment received by the Deputy Commissioner acting in charge of the Registrar of Companies, Andaman dated August 29, 2005 is enclosed herewith. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that after the receipt of the aforesaid demand draft the person in charge of the company affairs did not reply or reciprocate to the reply sent by him. It was only after a long span o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by them before different Magistrate. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the complaint is time barred debt. The complaint is filed after more than 3 years of the winding up of the company which is beyond the period of limitation and it is silent about the date of closure. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused cited the following decisions in support of their contentions : (i) In the Kerala High Court Crl. M. C. Nos. 713, 790, 806, 817, 833 and 834 of 2006 (Assistant Registrar of Companies v. State of Kerala). (ii) In the High Court of Kerala W. P. (C) No. 17053 of 2007(E) (Kaveri Meat Exports Co. Ltd. v. Union of India). 11. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 or are not filing documents with the Registrar of Companies in a timely manner. The applicant-company under this scheme would be deemed to be struck off from register of companies from the date of issue of order/notification by the Registrar of Companies. 15. According to the provisions of section 220 of the Act, the company and its directors are under statutory obligation to file with the complainant balance-sheet and profit and loss account in the prescribed form duly placed in the annual general meeting within 30 days from the said date, i. e., on or before October 30, 2006 and in case no the annual general meeting was held within thirty days of the due date of the annual general meeti....