TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrated in M.Cr.C.No.6965/2023 are taken into consideration. 2. A tabular representation of different petitions with alleged violation by petitioner and their brief particulars is given for ready reference:- Sr.No. Case Number Violation alleged by respondent Relevant Year Brief particular about offence 1 MCRC No.6970/2023 Allegation of violation Section 129 read with 137 of Companies Act, 2013 which is punishable under Section 129 (7) and 137 (3) of Companies Act, 2013 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 Allegation is non-submission of financial statement within the stipulated time with registrar of companies 2 MCRC No.6965/2023 Allegation of violation Section 12 (1) of Companies Act, 2013 which is punishable under Section 12 (8) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one of the Directors of M/s. Sterling Kalks Sand Bricks Limited (hereinafter referred as Company) between the period 30th September, 1992 to 19.04.1995 and 05.05.1998. On 19.04.1995 and 05.05.1998, petitioners resigned and no longer continued to remain as Directors of the Company thereafter. 6. In the year 2015, complaint was filed by respondent with the allegations that the Company and its Directors including the present petitioners were guilty of offence as contained in Section 12 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013. It was the allegation that Company is not having registered office address capable of receiving communications. Therefore, company and its Directors were guilty of such non-compliance. 7. Since the petitioner No.1 Avtar Singh Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Company. Notice in question referred the year 2014 where certain non-compliances under Section 12 of the Act, 2013 were noticed. Therefore, proceedings under Section 12 (8) of the Act, 2013 were initiated. Since petitioners resigned much earlier and S.E.B.I. recognized this fact earlier in their different proceedings, therefore, no case is made out at all. Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Thapar and others Vs. Madal Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 to submit that this is a case where no dispute regarding facts exist and date of resignation and its effect is not being disputed even by the respondent i.e. Registrar of the Companies. Therefore, no offense is prima facie made out and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereafter, alleged defaults have been committed. 13. In year 2004, in the matter of directions under Section 11 read-with Section 11(B) of the S.E.B.I. Act, 1992 to Sterling Kalks Sand Bricks Limited and its Directors, and in respect of some companies which were identified as vanishing companies, therefore, task force was set up in this regard. After detail inquiry by the task force in its report dated 09.09.2004 in para 5.1, a specific finding has been given in favour of petitioner. The said para 5.1 is reproduced as under:- "5.1- I find that in respect of the erstwhile directors viz. P.S. Santhankrishnan, Vijay Kumar Verma, Avtar Singh Narang, Sachidanand Chitalre, Neinz George Sibehlds, Paramjeet Singh Saluja and Ramnik Shah Saluja, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the petitioner. 16. Therefore, if on such allegations, Trial Court is allowed to continue, then it would nothing but harassment to be meted out to the petitioner because long drawn proceedings itself tantamount to punishment, when prima facie no case is made out and case of the petitioner already considered by the concerned authority i.e. S.E.B.I. and given findings in favour of the petitioner twice. 17. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, seven parameters were prescribed under which court can interfere for resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction. Here contingency No.5 is attracted and same is reproduced as under:- "Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and i....