- (1.) This is an application under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter "the Act"). It is made by five persons and a company. The first three describe themselves as non-executive directors. The first Petitioner is the promoter of the company AI Champdany Industries Ltd., which is the sixth Petitioner. He is 72 years old. The second Petitioner is the chairman of this company. He is 84 years old. The fourth Petitioner is a whole-time director. The fifth is the company secretary. They ask this Court to relieve them of the offences with which they are charged by five show-cause notices, all dated December 28, 2010. They were issued under various sections of the Act.
(2.) This application was filed in this Court on January 10, 2011. It was moved with a tender number on 10th itself. On the day of moving, I granted an injunction in terms of prayer "c" of the petition. As the Central Government did not file any affidavit-in-opposition till March 9, 2011, by an order made on that day time to file their affidavit was further extended peremptorily. In addition to prayer "c" an order in terms of prayer "d" was also granted. Prayers (c) and (d) are as follows: "(c) An order of injunction restraining the Respondents from instituting or causing to be instituted any criminal proceedings or any other proceedings against the Petitioners or any of them on account of the alleged violation as complained of in the five several notices all dated December 28, 2010, being annexures G, H, I, J and K to this petition. (d) Injunction restraining the Respondents and/or each of them from instituting any criminal proceedings and/or any other criminal proceedings and/or taking any steps or further steps and/or giving any effect or further effect to the notice dated June 2, 2010, being annexure B to the petition in any manner whatsoever."
(3.) It appears that prior to writing a letter dated June 2, 2010, the office of the Regional Director, Eastern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs had conducted an inspection and enquiry with regard to the company under q. It appears that this department made an inspection of their books of account, statutory records and other documents. According to them these documents revealed several violations of the Act. Thus they wrote the above letter on June 2, 2010, with copies to all its directors and its statutory auditor, alleging the violations and asking for explanation. The company replied to it by their letter dated July 13, 2010, denying each and every allegation.;