Allowed

Bpl Limited v. Registrar of Companies

Kerala HC5 Aug 2016OP/11546/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original petition challenging criminal proceedings initiated by the Registrar of Companies without considering the petitioner's replies. Court directed the Registrar to consider replies and keep criminal proceedings in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider replies and pass orders after hearing. Prosecution of S.T.Nos.345 to 349 in criminal court to be kept in abeyance.

Bpl Limited Vs Registrar of Companies — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP.No. 11546 of 2002 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

BPL LTD., BPL WORKS, PALAKKAD-678 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, MR.A.R.RAJARAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN SMT.PRIYA MAHESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682 011

¶11

2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR COMPANIES, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682 011

¶12

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, ADDL.CGSC SRI.S.BIJU, CGC

¶13

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

OP.NO.11546/2002

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

P1 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REF.NO.TA2/09-2015/INSP/209A/2595/2002, DATED 27/3/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

P2 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REF.NO.TA2/09-2015/INSP/209A/2646/2002, DATED 27/3/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

P3 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REF.NO.TA2/09-2015/INSP/209A/2662/2002, DATED 27/3/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶21

P4 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REF.NO.TA2/09-2015/INSP/209A/2630/2002, DATED 27/3/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶22

P5 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REF.NO.TA2/09-2015/INSP/209A/2614/2002 DATED 27/3/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶23

P6 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/04/2002 TO EXT.P1 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P7 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/04/2002 TO EXT.P2 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P8 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/04/2002 TO EXT.P3 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P9 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/04/2002 TO EXT.P4 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P10 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/04/2002 TO EXT.P5 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P11 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T.NO.345/02 FILED BEFORE THE ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (E.O) ERNAKULAM, DATED 30TH APRIL, 2002.

¶29

P12 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST.NO.346/02 FILED BEFORE THE ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT(EO) ERNAKULAM, DATED 30TH APRIL, 2002.

¶30

P13 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST.NO.347/02 FILED BEFORE THE ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (EO) ERNAKULAM, DATED 30TH APRIL, 2002.

2/-

-2-

OP.NO.11546/2002

P14 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST.NO.348/02 FILED BEFORE THE ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (EO) ERNAKULAM, DATED 30TH APRIL, 2002

¶35

P15 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST.NO.349/02 FILED BEFORE THE ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT(E.O) ERNAKULAM, DATED 30TH APRIL, 2002.

¶36

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

P.V.ASHA, J.

O.P. No.11546 of 2002

¶43

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2016

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

The petitioner filed this original petition for a direction to the respondents to consider Exts.P6 to P10 replies submitted by it in answer to the show cause notices-Exts.P1 to P5, wherein certain violations were noticed. Subsequently, the original

¶46

petition was amended challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner Company during the pendency of

¶47

the original petition and when the stay order passed by this Court was in force. The criminal complaints are also seen filed in respect of the very same allegations in the show cause notices.

¶48

This Court had by interim order dated 26.4.2002 stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notices Exts.P1 to P5 for a period of eight weeks. But when the stay order was in force, the 2^nd respondent filed ST.Nos.345, 346, 347, 348 and 349 of 2002 before the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam on 30.4.2002 against the directors and officers of the petitioner Company. By interim order dated

¶49

:2:

¶50

O.P. No.11546 of 2002

¶51

2.7.2002 in CMP No.29517 of 2002 this Court stayed further proceedings in ST.Nos.345, 346, 347, 348 and 349 of 2002.

¶52

It is the case of the petitioner that the complaints were filed in criminal court even without considering the reply submitted in answer to the show cause notices Exts.P1 to P5. It is also pointed out that even in Exts.P1 to P5 show cause notices, the alleged offences were found to be compoundable as seen from the last paragraph of the show cause notices, in which the 2^nd respondent himself asked the petitioner to consider compounding of the respective offences committed by the company and its officers by giving necessary application before the appropriate authorities. This was apart from the direction to submit reply if any within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notices.

¶53

The petitioner had submitted its reply Exts.P6 to P8 as

¶54

early as on 24.4.2002 itself within the time stipulated in the show cause notices.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that

¶56

the respondents have not considered the explanation submitted

¶57

O.P. No.11546 of 2002

¶58

:3:

¶59

so far and the criminal complaints are not proceeded with further, based on the interim order.

¶60

Heard Sri. P. Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Standing Counsel Sri.Biju appearing for the respondents. The action of the 2^nd respondent in proceeding against the petitioner and its officers filing criminal cases, when interim order staying further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notices Exts.P1 to P5 was in force, was not at all proper, especially when the petitioner was asked to get the matter compounded. At any rate, as the petitioner has already submitted replies to the show cause notices, it is only just and proper that the respondents consider those replies submitted by the company, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and parties if any, interested in the matter.

¶61

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 to P10 replies, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their representative within a period of three months

¶62

O.P. No.11546 of 2002

¶63

from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Further prosecution of the cases in the criminal court shall be subject to the outcome of the hearing on the replies and only in the event the offences alleged could not be compounded.

¶64

Till such time, the proceedings in S.T.Nos.345 to 349 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam shall be kept in abeyance.

¶65

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶68

rkc

Bpl Limited v. Registrar of Companies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bpl Limited v. Registrar of Companies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.N.Chellappan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Smitha Peter Vs State of Kerala

Lajish K.M. Vs K.P.S.C.

Minimol M.T. Vs State of Kerala & Others

A.Abdul Rasheed Vs Canara Bank

Krishnankutty Vs the Officer Commanding & Others