Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:companies act 1956 section 629a

Jun 07 2000

M. Kishan Rao and Ors. Vs. Mrs. P. Santha Reddy and Anr. (No. 1)

  • Decided on : 07-Jun-2000

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(2)ALD(Cri)212; [2001]40CLA126(AP); [2002]111CompCas361(AP); 2001CriLJ2729

..... them ineligible to participate or vote in the board proceedings under section 300 of the companies act, 1956. thus, it is alleged that the provisions of sections 299 and 300 of the companies act, 1956, have been violated by accused no. 4-company. hence, a-1 to a-4 committed offences punishable under the relevant provisions of the companies act.10. the proceedings in this complaint which has been taken cognizance ..... provisions of the companies act regarding maximum managerial remuneration under section 198 of the act or contravention of the provisions regarding payment of any remuneration, fee or any tax as provided for under section 200 of the companies act can be held to render the company liable for punishment under section 629a of the companies act. it may be noted that sub-section (8) of section 205a of the companies act renders the company and every officer ..... of the company who is in default punishable with fine or contravention of the said .....

Tag this Judgment!
Apr 24 1966

Raghunath Swarup Mathur Vs. Har Swarup Mathur

  • Decided on : 24-Apr-1966

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [1967]37CompCas802(All); 1968CriLJ670

..... there can be a contravention only when there is a direction or prohibition. as we have already observed, section 269(2) of the companies act contains no direction or prohibition, and section 629a does not, therefore, have any application. it is obvious that the accused was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged under the complaint.7. we may note ..... untenable. it would be seen that section 629a does not create any offence and only provides penalty for such contraventions of the ..... even in the absence of such a prohibition in section 269(2) of the companies act, the person acting as a managing director without the approval of the central government on the basis of a reappointment made for the first time after the commencement of the companies (amendment) act, 1960, would be liable to punishment under section 629a of the act. this contention appears to us to be equally .....

Tag this Judgment!
Feb 25 1966

Raghunath Swarup Mathur Vs. Dr. Raghuraj Bahadur Mathur and Ors.

  • Decided on : 25-Feb-1966

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1967All145; [1967]37CompCas304(All); 1967CriLJ306

..... that a single resolution moved to elect two or more directors of the company clearly amounts to contravention of the provisions of section 263(1) of the act and such a contravention would have beet: punishable under section 629a of the act, but for the existence of sub-section (2) of section 263. this sub-section lays down the consequence of moving such a faulty resolution, viz. it ..... of the sessions judge of saharanpur, whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondents, who were sentenced by the magistrate to pay a fine of rs. 250 each under section 629a of the companies act, hereinafter called the act.2. for proper appreciation of the points involved in the case it would be necessary to consider certain provisions of the ..... the names of four persons to be re-elected as directors of the company and inasmuch as h. s. mathur had seconded the same, they had directly contravened the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 263 of the act. so they, along with the other accused, were punishable under section 629a of the act. the argument is certainly plausible. however, it has to be remembered ..... moved.' 3. section 629a is a residuary provision for punishment for breach of the provisions of the act, where no specific remedy is available in other sections thereof. the material words of this section are :'if a company or any other person contravenes any provision of this act for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this act ..... the company and everyofficer of the company who is in .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 12 2008

Satish Batra and Anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies and Anr.

  • Decided on : 12-May-2008

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [2010]154CompCas453(Delhi)

..... was received by the directors, the company as on date has allotted shares to almost all applicants. a defence was also taken ..... before the learned company judge it was contended that as against the share application money which ..... to the board nor the proposal for allotment was put up before the board by the management. a show-cause notice came to be issued under section 628 of the companies act, 1956, to which the company furnished its reply/explanation and stated, inter alia, that the amount shown under the head share application money during the periods march 31, 2000 ..... company who is in default is liable to be prosecuted under section 629a of the act and directed the office to launch prosecution for the aforesaid violation.4. the appellant moved company petition no. 53 of 2007 before the learned company judge for an order excusing the appellants from any liability for the alleged default as specified in sections 628 and 629a of the companies act, 1956. .....

Tag this Judgment!
Feb 06 2001

A.V. Kasargod and Ors. Vs. The Registrar of Companies in Karnataka, Ba ...

  • Decided on : 06-Feb-2001

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2001KAR3674; 2002(2)KarLJ270

..... . no. 202 of 1998 on the file of the special court (economic offences), bangalore seeking for quashing the above proceedings against them for the offence punishable under section 629-a of the companies act, 1956 (for short 'the act').2. the respondent filed the above complaint registered as c.c. no. 202 of 1998 against the petitioners before the special court for economic offences, bangalore ..... . capt. (ex) t.s. gopalakriskna, wherein it was held that.--'failure to convene requisitioned extraordinary general meeting as required under the provisions of section 169 of the companies act, 1956 does not constitute an offence punishable under section 629-a of the act'.placing reliance on the above decision, he contended that on the same analogy of the above decision, in the instant case also, non ..... of the bombay high court in the case of arantee manufacturing corporation v. bright bolts private limited, wherein it was held that.--'sub-section (2) of section 294 of the companies act, 1956, contains a condition precedent that attaches to the very act of making the appointment of a sole selling agent by the board of directors. therefore, if any appointment of a sole selling agent .....

Tag this Judgment!
Apr 15 1996

Anantha R. Hegde Vs. Capt. T.S. Gopalakrishna

  • Decided on : 15-Apr-1996

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1998]91CompCas312(Kar); ILR1996KAR2267; 1996(3)KarLJ445

..... by the board of the stock exchange, but by that time the number of members supporting the requisition had fallen short of the mandatory requirement of section 169 of the companies act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). in view of the same, the board of directors of the stock exchange refused to call the extra-ordinary general meeting, in respect of which ..... judge also dismissed that appeal. it is alleged that a single resolution moved to elect 4 directors of a company normally amounts to contravention of section 263 and such contravention would be punishable under section 629a of the act. however, in view of the existence of section 263(2), the court held that the resolution itself becomes non-existent in the eye of law. therefore, ..... seized of the matter. 26. in this case, as stated earlier, the basic question involved is as to whether the directors have committed an offence punishable under section 629a for violation of section 169 of the act in not convening the meeting, etc. therefore, the finding of the civil court will go to the root of the criminal case. such being the position, it ..... board of directors refuse to convene a meeting, it would amount to an offence punishable under any provision of the act, much less under section 629a of the act. section 629a provides for penalty where no specific penalty is provided elsewhere in the act. from the wording of section 169, it can be gathered that the legislature never intended that on failure of the board of directors to .....

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 16 2009

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. A.K. Pandey

  • Decided on : 16-Sep-2009

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2009(12)SC364; 2009(12)SCALE617; (2009)10SCC552; 2009(10)LC4550(SC):2009AIRSCW6354

..... sugar co.'s case (supra) has therefore no application.21. in mannalal khetan and ors. v. kedar nath khetan and ors. : (1977) 2 scc 424 while dealing with section 108 of the companies act, 1956 a three judge bench of this court held:17. in raza buland sugar co. ltd. v. municipal board, rampur : (1965) 1 scr 970 this court referred to various tests ..... not lay -down penalty for non-compliance with the provision contained in section 108 of the act the provision is to be considered as directory. the high court failed to consider the provision contained in section 629a of the act. section 629a of the act prescribes the penalty where no specific penalty is provided elsewhere in the act. it is a question of construction in each case whether the ..... legislature intended to prohibit the doing of the act altogether, or merely to make the person who did it liable to .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jan 30 2008

Vinay Bharat Ram and Ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies NCT of Delhi

  • Decided on : 30-Jan-2008

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [2009]152CompCas7(Delhi)

..... .2. the aforementioned complaint case no. 349 of 2003 was filed by the registrar of companies ('roc') under section 58a(10) of the companies act, 1956 ('act') for alleged contravention of section 58a(9) of the act. the complaint states that the petitioners and two others were the 'directors/officers of the company i.e. dcm limited and were under a statutory obligation to comply with the provisions of ..... the matured public fixed deposits, a contravention of section 58a of the act has taken place and which was, thereforee, punishable in terms of section 629a of the act. 3. the contention of mr. r.n. mittal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the company had applied to this court under section 391/394 of the act for confirmation of a scheme of restructuring and arrangement ..... under which the assets and liabilities of the company were to be restructured. in the said .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 21 2002

Micromeritics Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. S. Munusamy

  • Decided on : 21-May-2002

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2003]116CompCas465(Mad); (2002)3MLJ83

..... of the company are duly recorded and signed, a presumption is drawn that the meeting has been duly called, held and all proceedings thereat have duly taken place ..... numbered and once the presumption under section 193 of the companies act is not available, the presumption under section 195 of the companies act is also not available to the appellants. 25. in b.sivaraman v. egmore benefit society ltd. 75 c.c.198 this court has reiterated and laid down the law as under:-under section 195 of the companies act, 1956,where the minutes of the proceedings ..... v. rajeswari ramakrishnan has held that the company court has the widest power which springs from an enactment of parliament and ..... punjab and haryana high court held that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the petition under section 257 read with sections 629a and 171 of the companies act is not competent. the decision is distinguishable as the respondents have approached the company law board on the ground of oppression of their rights. a division bench of this court in v.m.rao .....

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 04 1987

Chandra Spinning and Weaving Mills (P.) Ltd. and others Vs. Registrar ...

  • Decided on : 04-Sep-1987

Court : Karnataka

..... ), ('the act' for short), the company was required to submit three copies of the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account for the accounting year ended ..... company consists of the members of the joint hindu family as its shareholders.7. sri d r madhavakrishnaiah passed away in the year 1978.8. during the accounting year of the company 1979-80. i.e., from july 1, 1979, to june 30, 1980, a-2, a-3 and a-4 were its directors.9. under section 220(1) of the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956 ..... continuance of business without filing of such return is prohibited so that non-fulfillment of a continuing obligation or continuing offence. when section 162 of the companies act prescribed the penalty of fine `which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the default continues', it merely ..... and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or compiled with'. section 159 of the companies act does not impose any liability the failure to furnish the return in the manner or within the time stipulated. such an offence ..... has to be taken in the light of the provisions in section 611(2) of the act which enables filing of documents with the registrar after the time prescribed on payment of additional fees as prescribed therein. section 629a of the act also makes a distinction between the offences of the two types .....

Tag this Judgment!
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //