Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 50CompCas250(Cal),84CWN463
..... about september 24, 1973, they contravened the provisions of section 269(2) of the companies act rendering themselves liable for punishment under section 629a of the companies act. 4. it was further averred in the complaint that the company was called upon by the complainant on or about april 28, 1976, to explain the said contravention of section 269 of the companies act, 1956. thereafter, series of correspondence were exchanged between the ..... , the learned chief metropolitan magistrate held that section 269(2) of the companies act, 1956, did not create any offence and that the cognisance was barred by limitation. 6. the first question that falls for determination in this rule is, whether section 269(2) of the companies act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the act '),creates an offence punishable under section 629a of the act. to answer this question, it will be ..... necessary to refer to the above sections of the act. they read as follows : ' 269. (2) where a public company or a private company which is a subsidiary of a public company, is an existing company, the re-appointment .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 142CompCas548(Delhi); (2008)3CompLJ262(Del); 84SCL479(Delhi)
..... complaint case no. 670/2004 pending in the court of the learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate (acmm), delhi titled 'registrar of companies v. fortune stones ltd. and ors.' under section 224(7) read with section 629a of the companies act, 1956 (act).2. the petitioner no. 1 company had appointed m/s t.s. kakkar & co. as their first statutory auditors on 8th january 1996. the accounts were audited ..... by the said auditors till the year ending 31st march 1999. thereafter m/s t.s. kakkar & co., expressed their inability to audit the accounts of the company. accepting the ..... contravention in the instant case is a continuing one is accordingly rejected.8. the punishment for contravention of section 224(7) is only a fine as is evident from a reading of section 629a of the act which reads:.the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five ..... order dated 6th january 2005 which was far beyond the period of limitation as specified under section 468(2)(a) crpc. he submits that inasmuch as the offence under section 224(7) of the act is punishable only with fine of rs. 500/- in terms of section 629a of the act, the limitation for taking cognizance of the offence is six months. he further submits .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 66CompCas679(Kar)
..... the complainant in the course of his evidence. therefore, the court below committed an error in issuing the process for the offence under section 111(2) read with section 629a of the companies act, 1956. 5. in the result, the order passed by the court below issuing the process is set aside. the petition is allowed. ..... and 3 to 10 against the order issuing process against them for the offence under section 111(2) read with section 629-a of the companies act, 1956. 3. according to the complainant, he is a shareholder of the accused no. 1 company and he was holding 46 shares. sri sriramulu naidu and his wife, smt. ..... rupalatha naidu, who were also the shareholder of the accused no. 1 company and who were holding ..... name of the complainant. this was not done within two months. hence, the offence under section 111(2) read with section 629-a. 4. in the sworn statement, the complainant has not stated that the company refused to register such transfer of shares within two months from the date on which the ..... under certificate no, 514, sold their shares to the complainant on september 12, 1985. on the same day, the complainant sent a letter to the company for transfer. this was acknowledged by accused no. 2. the transferors. sri c. b. sriramulu naidu and smt. rupalatha naidu, also wrote to a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 143CompCas241(Delhi); 2007(96)DRJ378; 87SCL212(Delhi)
..... filed by the registrar of companies for alleged contravention of section 255 of the companies act, 1956, for which allegedly section 629a enacts offence punishable with fine.2. the principal allegations of the complainant registrar in crl. m. c. no. 115 of 2005, were that the petitioner-company did not follow the mandatory procedure ..... does not prescribe an offence. counsel relied upon the judgment of the calcutta high court reported as registrar of companies v. bharat produce co. ltd.  50 comp case 250. it was ..... . at the relevant time, the penalty, was rs. 500.though the judgment of the calcutta high court deals with section 629a, in my opinion, the reasoning cannot be universally applied because the fact situations of the contravention alleged have to be seen on a ..... case by case basis. section 629a is a residuary provision, in the sense that it creates an offence for contravention of statutory obligations, wherever no specific offence ..... of indicating, which of its one-third directors were to retire on rotation. in crl. m. c. no. 112 of 2005, the allegation likewise is that the petitioner was guilty of contravening section 268 in so far as it relates to appointment of the managing director.3. the ground urged is that section 629a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 80CompCas1(Mad)
..... for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. the short facts are : the respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 310 read with section 629a of the companies act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows : m/s. fenner (india) ltd. (first accused) is a ..... company incorporated under the indian companies act. the second accused is the managing director of the said company. accused nos. 3 to 9 are non-wholetime directors of the company. the officer authorised ..... 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 been 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, ..... approval. inasmuch as opposite party no. 2 continued to function as wholetime director on such reappointment, by the company, they violated the implied prohibition and thereby contravened section 269(2) for which they are liable for prosecution under section 629a of the act, argued mr. ghosh. mr. dhar, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1980CriLJ414
..... on their maturity. the petitioner along with its directors had failed to comply with the provision of section 58a(3)(a) and thus rendered themselves liable for punishment under section 58a(5)(b) and under section 629a of the companies act, 1956. the learned magistrate on receiving the petition of complaint took cognizance and issued summons against the petitioner ..... against a proceeding which is pending before the learned metropolitan magistrate, 6th court, calcutta. the prosecution is under section 58a(3)(a) of the companies act, 1956. the petitioner is the ritz continental hotels limited a company under the companies act, 1956 having its registered office at 12, jawaharlal nehru road, calcutta. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceeding ..... and its directors under the indian companies act. 2. it is submitted by mr. p. c. ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the company is being prosecuted under section 58a, ..... nehru road, calcutta. in the petition of complaint it is alleged that under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 58a of the companies act, 1956 every deposit accepted by a company at any time before the commencement of the companies (amendment) act, 1974, according to the directions made by the reserve bank of india, shall unless renewed, be repaid .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 59CompCas328(Mad)
..... the year ending march 31, 1976, though claimed. the non-repayment of the deposits of rs. 1,95,000 on maturity is in contravention of section 58a(3)(a) of the companies act, 1956, punishable under section 629a of the said act. hence the prosecution . 3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the acceptance of deposits by non-banking non-financial institutions ..... was formerly governed by the directions and regulations issued by the reserve bank of india under the reserve bank of india act, 1934, and violation of the ..... provide for punishment for the non-repayment of deposits accepted in accordance with the directions of the reserve bank of india. the offence is, therefore, punishable under the residuary section 629a of the companies act which provides for a punishment of fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and where the contravention is a continuing one with a further fine which may extend .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 89CompCas635(Mad)
..... madras. they are being prosecuted, on a private complaint, preferred by the respondent, the additional registrar of companies, madras, for alleged violation of the provisions contained under section 297 of the companies act, 1956, punishable under section 629a of the same act. 2. in this petition preferred under section 482 of the criminal procedure code, 1973, to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable ..... any provision of the act for which no punishment stands provided elsewhere under the act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person, shall be punished. at the ..... decision of a division bench of the calcutta high court in sushil kumar lahiri v. registrar of companies  53 comp cas 54. in that case, it was held that under section 621 of the companies act read with section 2(4), the assistant registrar of companies was the person competent to file the complaint and was the person aggrieved in the case. ..... of an offence, must have promptly acted to inform the respondent to set the law in motion, within the period of limitation, or otherwise face the risk of the prosecution being thrown out, on the ground of limitation bar. 4. contention no. 2 : under section 629a of the companies act, if the contravention is by a company or by any other person, of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 57CompCas187(Cal),87CWN499
..... 29, 1966, terminated the services of sri d.n. gupta without sending prior intimation of the proposed action to the company law board, and that the accused company thus contravened the provisions of section 635b of the companies act, 1956, which is punishable under section 629a of the said act.3. the learned chief metropolitan magistrate, calcutta, on receiving the complaint took cognizance and issued summons against the accused ..... the transferor, the transferee and the employee concerned) of which there is no allegation or averment in the complaint, and (4) that section 635b of the companies act, 1956, does not constitute or create a criminal offence punishable under section 629a of the act.5. the learned advocate for the petitioner has elaborated the aforesaid points and jetted on the decision in the case of mahalderam tea ..... bengal, against ashoka marketing ltd., and its four directors and secretary alleging commission of an, offence under section 629a read with section 635b of the companies act, 1956. the substance of the complaint is that the accused company and four other companies, viz., ashoka cement ltd., jaipur udyog ltd., rohtas industries ltd. and sone valley portland cement co. ltd., brought into existence a common concern named sahu cement .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 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!