Back
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Santosh Kumar Lahoti – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Companies, West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the complaint against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against the initiation of proceedings. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner's defense against alleged violations. (Para 6 , 8 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. clarity on legal interpretations regarding majority approval. (Para 10) |
| 5. court's findings on the procedural validity. (Para 20 , 30 , 53 , 54) |
| 6. court's final ruling on proceedings. (Para 25) |
| 7. key legal standards applied for quashing. (Para 27 , 35 , 38) |
| 8. conclusion and outcome of the case. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of complaint and proceeding being complaint no. 35/2019 pending before the Learned, 2nd Special Court, Calcutta at West Bengal under Section 448 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013 for alleged violation of Section 233 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013.
FACTS:-
2. The petitioner’s case is that he is the Company Secretary of Jayshree Chemicals Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the COMPANIES ACT , 1956 (“hereinafter referred to as the Act”), having its registered office at 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700 016, West Bengal and whose shares a
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "overruled by," "disapproved," or "bad law" explicitly mentioned in any of the case descriptions. Therefore, based solely on the information provided, there is no clear evidence to categorize any case as bad law.
HIMANSHU VS B. SHIVAMURTHY - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 76: The case states that an authorized signatory cannot be proceeded against without arraigning the company, which appears to be a settled legal principle. No indication of subsequent treatment is provided, so it is presumed to be followed or accepted.
S. R. SUKUMAR VS S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM - 2015 5 Supreme 695: Discusses permissible amendments and their limits. No indication of negative treatment; likely considered good law.
Directorate of Revenue VS Mohammed Nisar Holia - 2007 8 Supreme 741: Details the proof of contents of a document under section 66, a procedural point that is generally well-established law.
SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI VS SANGITA RANE - 2015 3 Supreme 77: Emphasizes the importance of proper allegations to establish vicarious liability; no indication of subsequent criticism.
Shiv Kumar Jatia VS State of NCT of Delhi - 2019 7 Supreme 111: Explains that vague allegations and lack of active role can lead to quashing proceedings, a typical judicial stance.
Narsingh Das Tapadia VS Goverdhan Das Partani - 2000 6 Supreme 205: Clarifies the handling of pre-mature complaints under Section 138, consistent with procedural law.
DEBA PRASAD ROY VS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 365: The standard that mere omission is insufficient to establish an offence under Section 628 of Companies Act, 1956, appears to be a settled principle.
Subramanian Swamy VS Manmohan Singh - 2012 1 Supreme 577: Discusses citizen rights to make representations for prosecution sanctions, a procedural safeguard.
SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - 2015 1 Supreme 422: Explains that a magistrate can summon persons not named in the charge sheet if sufficient material exists; the principle of ‘alter ego’ is also reaffirmed.
SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS VS ABANI KUMAR BANERJEE - 1950 0 Supreme(Cal) 81: States that a magistrate is not bound to take cognizance solely based on a complaint, a procedural point.
S. K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer VS Videocon International Ltd. - 2008 1 Supreme 477: Differentiates between ‘Initiation’ and ‘Commencement’ of proceedings, clarifying legal terminology without indicating subsequent treatment.
None of the cases explicitly mention subsequent judicial treatment such as overruled or criticized, making their treatment status uncertain. Without additional context or references to later judgments, their treatment remains presumed as standard or settled.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
