SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(AP) 221

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SHARFUDDIN AHMED
Public Prosecutor - Appellant
Versus
H.R.Basava Raj - Respondent
Decided On : 12-04-62

The failure to lay a balance sheet and profit and loss account before the company at its annual general meeting is an offence under Section 210 of the Companies Act, but it is a defence to prove that the meeting could not be held for reasons beyond the control of the directors.

Headnote:

COMPANIES ACT - SECTIONS 166, 210 - ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING - BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT - FAILURE TO LAY BEFORE COMPANY - DEFENCE - NO MEETING HELD FOR REASONS BEYOND CONTROL.

Fact of the Case:

The directors of a private limited company were charged with failing to lay before the company a balance sheet and profit and loss account at its annual general meeting, in contravention of Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956. The directors pleaded not guilty, arguing that the first annual general meeting could not be held for reasons beyond their control.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the directors could not hold the general meeting for reasons beyond their control, and therefore they could not be held guilty for not laying the balance sheet and profit and loss account.

Issues: Whether the directors could be held guilty for contravening the provisions of Section 210 of the Companies Act, viz., for not placing before the company balance sheet and profit and loss account at its annual general meeting.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the holding of an annual general meeting is a prerequisite for laying the balance sheet and profit and loss account. If no general meeting could be held in compliance with Section 166, the question of laying balance sheet and profit and loss account in accordance with Section 210 would not arise.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that no case had been made out against the respondents.

AHMED, J.

( 1 ) A complaint was filed by the Registrar of Companies of Andhra Pradesh against the respondents alleging that they were the directors of a private limited company, which had been registered on 5-12-1958 under the Companies Act, 1956. It was incumbent on the directors in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act (Section 166) to lay before the company a balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the company for the period (958-59 and as they had failed to do so, they were liable to punishment under Section 210 (5) of the Companies Act. The respondents accused pleaded not guilty and urged that as the first annual general meeting of the company could not be held for reasons beyond their control there was no question of laying before the company a balance sheet and profit and loss account as contemplated under Section 166. The learned Magistrate accepted the pica of the respondents and dismissed the complaint acquitting them of the said charge. The State has conic in appeal against this order.

( 2 ) THE contention of the learned Public Pro-seculor is that an offence under Section 210 of the Act has nothing to do with the holding of the general body meeting and is an independent offence in itself. Reliance has been placed for this purpose on the State of Bombay v. Bandhan Ram, AIR 1961 SC 186. It was laid down therein that:"the fact that no general meeting of the company was held was, in the circumstances no defence to the charge of not complying with the requirements of Section 32. A person charged with an offence could not rely on his own default as an answer to the charge. "the contention by the learned Counsel on the other side is that the ruling has not application as it is with reference to the provisions of Section 32 of the Old Act of 1913. The corresponding sections under the new Act having been substantially altered and that it is also distinguishable on facts.

( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding to examine the arguments on cither side some facts regarding which there is no controversy may briefly be stated. It is admitted that the company "messrs. Techniplant Private Limited" was registered as a private company on 5-2-1958. It consisted of the three accused-respondents as directors and shareholders, the 4th respondent being the Secretary of the Company. The 1st respondent was the Managing Director but within two months of the registration and formation of the company he was made to resign and he was succeeded by the 2nd respondent. Then there were disputes between respondent No. 1 on one side and the other respondents on the other. The 1st respondent got the books of the company sealed with the help of police. There was an application in the High Court also and finally the company went into liquidation. A separate charge-sheet was filed against the Directors for contravening the provisions of Section 166 of the Companies Act, 1956 by not holding a general body meeting within 18 months from the date of its incorporation. It was pleaded therein that the meeting could not be held for reasons beyond the control of the accused as an application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act for winding up the company itself was filed in the High Court on 18-12-1958 i. e. , within the time-limit. The trial Court found the accused guilty but on appeal the sentences were set aside on the ground that there was no wilful default in non-complying with the said provisions. In this context, it has to be determined whether the respondents could be held guilty for contravening the provisions of Section 210 of the Companies Act viz. , for not placing before the company balance sheet and profit and loss account at its annual genera! meeting.

( 4 ) SECTION 210 of the Companies Act, hereinafter called the Act, provides that: " (1) At every annual general meeting of a company held in pursuance of Section 166, the Board of Directors of the company shall lay before the Company (a) a balance sheet as at the end of the period spe




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top