2019 (10) TMI 545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt issued a show-cause notice dated 17.03.2009 calling upon the petitioners as to why action should not be initiated against them for violation of Section 97(1) of the Companies Act. Petitioner No.1 issued a reply thereto, however, failed to submit copy of the resolution dated 17.12.2007 and the copy of the subsequent resolution dated 30.12.2008 and hence, the respondent initiated action against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under section 97(1) and read with Section 97(3) of Companies Act, 1956. Petitioners have assailed the said action on the ground that proceedings initiated against them are barred by limitation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by placing reliance on Section 97 of the Companies Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....racted hereinbelow.- 97. Notice of increase of share capital or of members. (1) Where a company having a share capital, whether its shares have or have not been converted into stock, has increased its share capital beyond the authorised capital, and where a company, not being a company limited by shares, has increased the number of its members beyond the registered number, it shall file with the Registrar, notice of the increase of capital or of members within 2thirty] days after the passing of the resolution authorising the increase; and the Registrar shall record the increase and also make any alterations which may be necessary in the company' s memorandum or articles or both. (2) The notice to be given as a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he balance sheet and the Profit and loss account were so laid or where the annual general meeting of a company or in the case where annual general meeting was not held within 30 days from the latest day on or before annual general meeting of the company should have been held there i.e., on 31st December 2008. Considering this provision and relying upon the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue, in paras 69 and 70 of the above judgment, it is held that:- 69. "The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Suresh Seth [1981] 129 ITR 328 (SC) referred to earlier, has laid down that a wrong or default which is complete, but whose effect may continue to be felt even after its completion, is, howe....