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

1969 Supreme(Mad) 169

Madras High Court
KRISHNASWAMY REDDY
Public Prosecutor, Government of Pondicherry - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Aziz Khan - Respondent
Decided On : 04/01/1969

Advocates:
Public Prosecutor, for Pondicherry, for Appellant; Vedanatam Srinivasan, for Respondents.

The prosecution under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, was not saved after the commencement of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, as it was not instituted or ordered by the Court before the commencement of the 1956 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, could not be invoked to save the prosecution as there was a contrary intention expressed in Section 648 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Headnote:

COMPANIES ACT - Prosecution under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 - Whether saved after the commencement of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 - Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents were appointed as liquidators of a company that was wound up voluntarily in 1963. They failed to file returns as required by the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and were prosecuted under Sections 208-D(2), 208-E(3), and 244(3) of the Act. The Magistrate acquitted the respondents, holding that the prosecution was unsustainable as the Companies Act of 1913 was not in force on the date of the alleged contraventions and that the respondents were relieved from liability under Section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the prosecution was unsustainable as it was not saved by Section 648 of the Companies Act, 1956, which only saved prosecutions instituted or ordered by the Court under Section 237 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, before the commencement of the 1956 Act. The Court also held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, could not be invoked to save the prosecution as there was a contrary intention expressed in Section 648 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, was saved after the commencement of the Indian Companies Act, 1956? 2. Whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, could be invoked to save the prosecution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 648 of the Companies Act, 1956, only saved prosecutions instituted or ordered by the Court under Section 237 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, before the commencement of the 1956 Act. The present prosecution was not saved by Section 648 as it was not instituted or ordered by the Court before the commencement of the 1956 Act. 2. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, could not be invoked to save the prosecution as there was a contrary intention expressed in Section 648 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- This appeal has been filed by the Public Prosecutor. Government of Pondicherry, against the order of acquittal by the First Class Magistrate No. 2, Pondicherry, of the two respondents in C. C. No. 397 of 1966, on the private complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies, Pondicherry, against them under Sections 208-D (2), 208-E (3) and 244(3) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The second respondent is since dead.

2. The Prosecution case is briefly this: Amara Pictures Private Limited was incorporated on or about 26-10-1949 as a private company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It had its registered office at No. 61. St., Therese Street, Pondicherry. By a special resolution passed by the members of the Company on 15-5-1963, the Company was required to be wound up voluntarily and the two respondents were appointed as liquidators of the Company. The respondents had notified their appointment as the liquidators on 20-6-1963. By a letter dated 7-11-1963 the respondents on behalf of the Company informed the Registrar of Companies that they have held the final meeting of winding up in accordance with S. 208-E of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 on 30-10-1963 and that they have prepared all returns already and requested for a few days time to file the returns with the complainant. In spite of several letters and reminders sent by the Registrar of Companies, Pondicherry the respondents did not send returns; nor did they care to reply or take steps to comply with the requirements of the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The two respondents have failed and neglected to file returns for the period from 15-5-1963 to 14-3-1964 and 15-3-1964 to 14-3-1965. Thereupon, a final notice was issued to the respondents on 19-4-1966 explaining therein the implications and stating that unless they comply with the requirements, they would be prosecuted. They were also given 15 days' time for filing the returns. The second respondent by his letter dated 6-5-1966 explained the reasons for the delay and requested for a fortnight's time for filing returns. As they had failed to submit the returns, they were again reminded of the expiry of the time of 14 days granted to them. The respondents have not taken further steps. Hence the complaint was filed under Sections 208-D (2), 208-E(3) and 244(3) of the Act.

3. Sec. 208-D(1) of the Act provides that in the event of the winding up continuing for more than one year, the liquidator shall summon a general meeting of the Company at the end of the first year from the commencement of the winding up and of each succeeding year, as soon thereafter as may be convenient within ninety days of the close of the year, and shall lay before the meeting an account of the preceding year and a statement in the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars with respect to the position of the liquidation. Sec. 208-D (2) provides for a penalty of not exceeding Rs. 100/- if the Liquidator fails to comply with the section. It is the case of the prosecution that the pendency of winding up has exceeded more than a year and the company has not called for a general meeting as required by Sec. 208-D of the Act and in spite of the letter by the Registrar dated 20-1-1966 and a reminder issued thereafter the Liquidators have not taken action. Under Sec. 208-E (3), the Liquidator, within one week after the meeting shall send to the Registrar a copy of the account, and shall make a return to him of the holding of the meeting and of its date, and if the copy is not sent or the return is not made as required, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees for every day during which the default continues. Under Sec. 244(1) of the Act, if the winding up is not completed within one year from the date of its commencement, the liquidator shall submit a statement in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars with respect to the proceedings in and the positio




















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