Skip to content


In Re: Karumuthu Thiagarajan, Managing Agent and Director of the Sri Minakshi Mills Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad589; (1939)2MLJ97
AppellantIn Re: Karumuthu Thiagarajan, Managing Agent and Director of the Sri Minakshi Mills Ltd.
Excerpt:
- .....mills, ltd., madura, and the petition is to revise his conviction under section 140(3) of the indian companies act for refusal to produce the books and documents of the company before the inspector appointed under section 138 of the act.2. the refusal to produce the books and documents of the company was not disputed in this court but the inspector was appointed by the provincial government by order dated 18th august, 1937, subsequent to the transfer of the functions of the local government under section 138 of the indian companies act to the central government by the new act and these functions were not entrusted to the provincial government by the governor-general under section 124(1) of the government of india act till 1st april, 1938. paragraph 8(2) of the india and burma.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The petitioner is the managing agent and director of the Sri Meenakshi Mills, Ltd., Madura, and the petition is to revise his conviction under Section 140(3) of the Indian Companies Act for refusal to produce the books and documents of the Company before the Inspector appointed under Section 138 of the Act.

2. The refusal to produce the books and documents of the Company was not disputed in this Court but the Inspector was appointed by the Provincial Government by order dated 18th August, 1937, subsequent to the transfer of the functions of the Local Government under Section 138 of the Indian Companies Act to the Central Government by the new Act and these functions were not entrusted to the Provincial Government by the Governor-General under Section 124(1) of the Government of India Act till 1st April, 1938. Paragraph 8(2) of the India and Burma (Transitory Provisions) Order, 1937, empowers the Governor and not the Provincial Government to continue to discharge these functions in the interval and the prosecution case hitherto was that the Inspector was appointed by the Provincial Government. The authentication of the order of the Provincial Government in the manner specified in the rules framed under Section 59(2) of the Government of India Act would not make it an order of the Governor under paragraph 8(2) of the India and Burma (Transitory Provisions) Order, 1937, and it follows that the Inspector was not validly appointed. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 140(3) of the Indian Companies Act cannot therefore be sustained and it is unnecessary to consider the contention, that ex facie the Inspector was appointed on the report of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and not the Assistant Registrar who made the investigation under Section 137 of the Act and the appointment is consequently invalid. The conviction of the petitioner is accordingly set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //