Disposed

Fresh Coconut Products Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar of Companies

Kerala HC27 Jun 2011Crl.MC/398/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging proceedings for non-submission of company accounts. The court held quashing unnecessary but stayed coercive steps, allowing petitioners time to approach the Registrar of Companies or Adalath to seek compounding of offences.

What did the court decide?

Coercive steps in ST Nos. 781 and 782 of 2008 and LP No. 252 of 2009 stayed until 01.08.2011 to allow petitioners to approach appropriate authorities for compounding.

Fresh Coconut Products Ltd. Vs Assistant Registrar of… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 398 of 2011()

¶6

ST.781/2008 & ST.782/2008 OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ECONOMIC OFFENCES) COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 & 2 :

¶8

-----------------------------------------------

¶9

1. FRESH COCONUT PRODUCTS LTD., KADUPPISSERY P.O., TRICHUR-680 698, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

2. A.S.SABU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FRESH COCONUT PRODUCTS LTD., KADUPPISSERY.P.O, TRICHUR-680698, KERALA FLAT NO.4, ST.ANTONY'S BAKERY, NO.171, KOLBAD, THANE, MAHARASHTRA-4000 061.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

-------------------------

¶14

1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, BMC ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN-682 021.

¶15

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

R1 BY ADVS. SRI. PHILIP MATHEW, CGC SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

...2/-

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 398 of 2011()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S

¶23

ANNEXURE - I : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-11-2001 ISSUED BY THE KSIDC TO THE COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS.

¶24

ANNEXURE - II : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28-7-2008 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ST NO. 781/2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CJM COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM.

¶25

ANNEXURE - III : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29-7-2008 IN ST NO. 782/2008 OF THE ADDITIONAL CJM COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM.

¶26

ANNEXURE - IV : COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FILED IN FORM 23 AC UNDER SECTION 220 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR 2007.

¶27

ANNEXURE - V : COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED IN FORM 23 ACA UNDER SECTION 220 OF THIS ACT FOR THE YEAR 2007.

¶28

ANNEXURE - VI : COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 6-12-2010 FOR REMITTANCE OF THE FEE AND LATE/ADDITIONAL FEE FOR FILING THE ANNEXURE IV AND V.

¶29

ANNEXURE - VII : COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FILED IN FORM 20B UNDER SECTION 159 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR PERIOD ENDED ON 31-3-2007. ANNEXURE - VIII : COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 2-12-2010 FOR REMITTANCE OF THE FEE AND THE ADDITIONAL/LATE FEE FOR FILING THE ANNEXURE VII ANNUAL RETURN.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.398 of 2011 -------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2011.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in S.T.Nos.781 of 2008 and 782 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam (included in the Long Pending Register as L.P.No.252 of 2009 of the said court). Those cases were registered on the complaint of the first respondent that petitioners did not submit the balance sheet, profit and loss account and annual returns within the time prescribed and thereby committed offences under Sections 220(1) and (2) and 159 of the Companies Act (for short, “the Act”). Learned counsel has submitted that though subsequently, with late fee petitioners have submitted returns and accounts which has been accepted by first respondent and in the circumstances, proceeding against petitioners may be quashed.

¶37

Learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that it is open to the Officer concerned to move the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 633(1) of the Act. It is also submitted that petitioners could move appropriate application before the adalath organized by the Registrar of Companies pursuant to notification, F No.3/57/2011-CL.II dated June 3, 2011 and it is within the power of adalath to compound the offences.

¶38

¶39

Crl.MC No.398/2011

¶40

Having regard to the above opportunities available to the petitioners, I am not inclined to think that it is necessary to quash the proceeding. But, in view of the submission of accounts/annual returns as the case may be which has been received by the first respondent with late fee, the appropriate court or authority has to see whether the power under Section 633(1) of the Act or the power for compounding offences as per the notification above stated could be exercised in favour of petitioners.

¶41

Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to give time to the petitioners to move appropriate application before the appropriate authority as aforesaid.

¶42

Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of directing that all coercive steps initiated against petitioners in S.T.Nos.781 of 2008 and 782 of 2008 and L.P.No.252 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam will stand in abeyance till 01.08.2011. In the meantime it is open to the petitioners to approach appropriate authorities as aforesaid and seek appropriate reliefs.

¶43

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶44

cks

Fresh Coconut Products Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar of Companies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fresh Coconut Products Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar of Companies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Jaffer Vs State of Kerala

E.K.Ashraf Vs Benny Mathew

Manoj Vadavath Vs M/S.Cheloor Property Development

Anuja Rabi Vs C.I.of Police,Chalakudy & Another

Abdul Khader Vs K.T.Ali Haji & Another

Komalam Janardhanan Vs State of Kerala