STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BANDHAN RAM BHANDANI
LAWS(SC)-1960-9-10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on September 23,1960

STATE OF BOMBAY Appellant
VERSUS
BANDHAN RAM BHANDANI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EMPEROR V. PIONEER CLAY AND INDUSTRIAL WORKS LTD. [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

KUMARI SAROJ VS. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1970-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA AND SONS PRIVATE LTD VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1966-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ JINDAL VS. REGISTRAR COMPANIES U P [LAWS(ALL)-1996-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. H R BASAVA RAJ [LAWS(APH)-1962-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PROVINCIAL POTTERIES LIMITED TADEPALLI VS. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERBAD [LAWS(APH)-1969-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
DULAL CHANDRA BHAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1961-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL KHAITAN VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1968-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES VS. MATI BEGUM SAFARAN KHATOON [LAWS(CAL)-1978-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES VS. HARIBANSHA MISRA [LAWS(ORI)-1969-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES VS. UTKAL DISTRIBUT [LAWS(ORI)-1975-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD VS. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [LAWS(KAR)-1987-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
BEJOY KUMAR KARNANI VS. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [LAWS(CAL)-1984-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. TONK CALICO PRINTERS PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-1962-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. LINKERS PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(PAT)-1967-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. ANDHRA PROVINCIAL POTTERIES LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1973-8-41] [DISTINGUISHED]
VULCAN INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [LAWS(ORI)-1972-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY HOUSE PRIVATE LTD VS. KULDIP RAJ NARANG [LAWS(DLH)-1986-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY HOUSE PRIVATE LTD. VS. KULDIP RAJ NARANG AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-1989-12-43] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The respondents were Directors of Hirjee Mills Ltd. They were prosecuted before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for two offences, under the Companies Act, 1913, as amended by Act XXII of 1936. The first offence was that they knowingly and wilfully authorised the failure to file the summary of share capital for the year 1953 and thereby became punishable under sub-sec (5) of S. 32 of the Act, for a default to carrying out the requirements of that section. The second offences was that they were 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, and thereby became punishable under S. 133(3) of the Act for a default in complying with the requirements of S. 131. There was a separate trial in respect of each offence.
(2.)The learned Magistrate found that no general meeting of the company had been held in the year concerned. Following Emperor v. Pioneer Clay and Industrial Works Ltd., ILR (1948) Bom 86 : (AIR 1948 Bom 357), he acquitted the respondents, being of the view that no offence under either section could be committed till the general meeting had been held. The learned Magistrate did not go into the merits of the cases on the facts. Appeals by the appellant to the High Court at Bombay from the orders of the learned Magistrate were summarily dismissed. It has preferred the present appeals from the decisions of the High Court at Bombay with special leave granted by this Court. The appeals have been heard together and are both disposed of by this judgment.
(3.)It appears that Respondent No. 7, N. K. Firodia, was discharged by the learned Magistrate because it was conceded at the trial that he was not a director of the Company at any material time. He has been made a respondent to the present appeals clearly through some misapprehension. The appellant, the State of Bombay, does not and cannot proceed against him. The name of respondent Firodia should therefore be struck out from the records of this appeal. Respondent No. 5, Fatch Chand Jhunjhunwala, died while this appeal was pending in this Court. The appeal is therefore concerned with the remaining five respondents only.
;


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