Source: https://www.kopykitab.com/blog/case-law-companies-act-petitioner-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-respondent-andhra-provincial-potteries-ltd-ors/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:52:20+00:00

Document:
ACT: Companies Act (1 of 1956) s. 220 and Companies Act 7 of 1913 s. 134 Prosecution for not sending copies of balance-sheet etc. to Registrar-No, general body meeting held-Liability.
Dulal Chandra Bhar v. State of West Bengal, 1962-32 Company Cases 1143 Gopal Khaitan v. State (1969) 39 Company Cases 150, Ramachandra & Sons (P) v. State, (1967) 11 Coml. J. 92 JUDGMENT: Ltd., A.I.R. 1963 Rajasthan, 134 India Nutriments Ltd. v.
Registrar of Companies, 1934 34. Companies Cases 160 P. S. N. SAA. Chettiar & Company v. Registrar of Companies, A.I.R. 1966 Madras 415, Registrar of Companies v. H. Mishra, A.I.R. 1969 Orissa 234, State v. Linkers Private Ltd. A.I.R. 1969 Patna 445 & (1970) 40 C.C. 17, Registrar of Companies v. Gopala Pillai & Ors. 1951 K.L.J. 490 Debendra Nath Das Gupta v. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, I.L.R. 1918 Calcutta 486, Ballev Dass v. Mohan Lal Sadhu, 1934-35 39 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1152 and Bhagirath v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1948, Calcutta 42 and re Cangipati Appayya, A.I.R. 1952 Madras 800, disapproved. Imperator v. The Pioneer Clay and Industrial Works Ltd., I.L.R.  Bom. 86: A.I.R. 1948 Bombay 357, Vulcan Industries (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies Orissa, I.L.R. (1972) Cuttack 373 and re Narasimha Rao, A.I.R. (1937) Madras 341, approved.
& CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:-Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1970. Appeal by certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India from the judgment and order dated 18-3-1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 360 of 1968. F. S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India and A. V. Rangam, for the appellants. L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India and A. V. V. Nair, for the Advocate General Andhra Pradesh. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in A.I.R. (1970) A.P. 70. It arises out of a complaint filed against the 1st respondent company and its directors for failure to Me with the Registrar of Companies on or before 30-10-1967 the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company as required under section 220(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, which is punishable under sub-section (3) of that section. Admittedly no general body meeting had been held and, therefore, the balance sheet and profit and loss account had not been laid before a general body meeting nor could it be so laid.
had taken the. view that a person charged with an offence cannot rely on his default as an answer to the charge and so, if he was responsible for not calling the general meeting, he cannot be heard to say in defence to the charges brought against him that because the general meeting had not been called, the balance sheet and profit and loss account could not be laid before it. In that case the directors of a company were prosecuted under ss. 32(5) and 133(3) of the Companies Act, 1913, for breaches of ss. 32 and 131 of that Act for having knowingly and wilfully authorized the failure to file the summary of share capital for the year 1953 and being knowingly and wilfully parties to the failure to lay before the company in general meeting the balance sheet and profit and loss account as at March 31, 1953.
The Bombay High Court, however, following its earlier decision in Imperator v. The Pioneer Clay and Industrial Works Ltd.(1) had upheld the acquittal of the directors by the Presidency Magistrate. Referring to the decision of the Bombay High Court in that case this Court pointed out that decision turned on s. 134 of the Companies Act, 1913 the language of which was to a certain extent different from the language used in ss. 32 and 131 and refrained from going into the question whether the difference in language in section 134 on the one hand and ss. 32 and 131 on the other made any difference to the decision of the case. After referring to the decisions in Gibson v. Barlon(2) Edmonds v. Foster(3) and Park v. Lawton(4 )where it was held that a person charged with an offence could not rely on his own default as an answer to the charge, and so, if the person charged was responsible for not calling the general meeting, he cannot be heard to say, in defence to the charge that the general meeting had not been called, and that the company and its officers were bound to perform the condition precedent if they could do that, in order that they might perform their duty, this Court considered that as the correct view to take.
High Court, India Nutriments Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies(1) and P.S.N.S.A. Chettiar & Company v. Registrar of Companies(2) of the Madras High Court. The Orissa High Court had taken a similar view in Registrar of Companies v. Misra (3) but in a latter decision in Vulcan Industries (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, Orissa(4) it has taken a contrary view and followed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the judgment under appeal. That decision is also pending in appeal before this Court. The Patna High Court in State v. Linkers Private Ltd.(5) and the Kerala High Court in Registrar of Companies v. Gopala Pillai & Ors. (6) have also taken a similar view. We may now refer to some of the earlier decisions on this Point. The earliest decision is the one in Debendra Nath Das Gupta v. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies.(?) In that case the principle laid down in Park v. Lawton(8) was applied and it was held that it is not open to the petitioner to plead in answer to a charge under sections 134 his prior default in respect of the calling of the prescribed general meeting and of placing before the company at such meeting a duly prepared and audited balance sheet. The decision in Ballav Dass v. Mohan Lal Sadhu(9) did not refer to the wording of the section but merely stated that the provisions of section 134 were not complied with. The same court in Bhagirath v. Emperor(10) took the same view. In re Varaszmha Rao(11) a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court took the view that the same persons cannot be charged in respect of the same years with offences punishable both under ss. 131 and 134, Companies Act because S. 134 clearly contemplates the sending of a copy of the balance-sheet only after it has been placed before the company at a general meeting under s. 131 and that where in a case there is no such placing of the balance-sheet before the company at a general meeting, the offence under S. 134 cannot ‘,be committed. In re Gangipati Appayya(12) a view contrary to the one taken earlier by a Judge of that High Court was taken.
This observation may provide no defence to a prosecution under section 133 but it might well do so in a prosecution under section 134. This was what the learned Solicitor General was fair enough to point out with regard to the difficulty of working out the daily penalty under s. 162 after the thirtieth day mentioned in section 220(1) of the 1.956 Act. He pointed out that where no meeting has been held it was not possible to calculate the period of 30 days specified in that section and it would not be possible to give effect to the provisions of that section. The Bombay High Court pointed out in Emperor v. Pioneer Clay & In- dustrial Works(1) that the decision in Park v. Lawton(2) is based on S. 36 (it is a mistake for s. 26) of the English Act, which in its scheme and terms is entirely different from the section with which they (the Bombay High Court) were concerned, and that the section in the English Act is a composite one which lays down various requirements which are to be complied with by the company under its first four sub- clauses and sub-cl.
Companies Act Case Law H.V. Jayaram Vs Industrial Credit And Investment Corporation Of India Ltd.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.