B.N. VISWANATHAN Vs. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, MADRAS
LAWS(MAD)-1952-9-29
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 03,1952

B.N. Viswanathan Appellant
VERSUS
Assistant Registrar Of Joint Stock Companies, Madras Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ramaswami, J. - (1.) THIS is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the conviction and sentence of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras, in C. C. No. 4903 of 1951.
(2.) THE facts are; The petitioner before us, B. N. Viswanathan, who was the fourth accused in the lower Court was one of the Directors of the Madras Electrical Industries Ltd., by its Managing Agents, the Indian Trades and Investments Ltd. This fourth accused appears to have had the controlling interest in the Managing Agency because out of the ten shares of the Managing Agency concern, nine belongs to his wife, for whom he acts, and one belongs to this accused as pointed out by Mack J. in his order in O. P. No. 1023 of 1951. This accused has also given his address as 310 -311 Lingi Chetti Street to the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and this is the address of the Managing Agency concern, the Indian Trades and Investments Ltd., also. In these circumstances on account of the internecine quarrels which seem to have dogged the footpath of this firm from the beginning the company laid its last balance -sheet and profit and loss account before the General Body meeting held on 31 -3 -1959. No balance -sheet and profit and loss account had been laid before a General Body meeting of the company before 30 -6 -1950 as should have been done under the provisions of Section 131(1), Companies Act. Therefore, this petitioner and three others were charged for an offence under Section 131(1), Companies Act. This accused was convicted and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.
(3.) IT is also seen that this petitioner has also been put up along with other Directors for not holding a General Body meeting under Section 76, Companies Act. It is undisputed that all these directors got convicted under Section 76 and fines were imposed on them and this Court refused to interfere in revision.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.