Back
VIJU ABRAHAM
E. V. Asokan – Appellant
Versus
Varierty Finance and Traders Pvt. Ltd. , (in Liquidation) – Respondent
ORDER :
The above company application is filed by accused nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Crl. Complaint No.1 of 2022 filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules, 1959 seeking discharge.
2. Criminal Complaint No.1 of 2022 is filed under Section 538 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1956) for failure of accused, eight in number, to comply with the requirement of Clause (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 538 of the Act of 1956. The complaint is in the matter of M/s. Variety Finance and Traders Pvt. Ltd. (in Prov. Liquidation) which was ordered to be wound up as per order dated 02.07.2009 of this Court in C.P. No.7 of 2007 and the official liquidator attached to this court has been appointed as the official liquidator of the company. The accused were the directors of the company as on the date of the winding-up order. As per the complaint, the ex-directors of the company, accused nos.1 to 6 filed the statement of affairs of the company as per the provisions of Section 454 (1) of the Act of 1956 and Rule 127 of the Company (Court) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1959). It is averred in the complaint
Quash of criminal proceedings– Directors of company - admittedly proceeding initiated by Official Liquidator since not being one under Section 446, respondent / Official Liquidator ought to have obta....
The nature of the offenses and the prescribed penalties determine whether the offenses are continuing or one-time, and the applicability of limitation periods. Prosecutions under the repealed 1956 Ac....
Directors and/or Promoters of Company have committed breach of provisions contained in Sections 63, 68 & 628 of Act, he should not have waited for long ten years. Such commission or omission on their....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused company's failure to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding the deposit and disbursement of declared divi....
The court affirmed that non-compliance with regulatory provisions constitutes a continuing offence, extending prosecution limitations under the Companies Act.
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
