Karnataka High Court
Mrs R Chintamani vs The Registrar Of Companies on 2 September, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
aw Mn" w'n..za I W w
op coupmm
mwmmawmwmmm WWW Wm-W W mmmmmm Maw mwmm W mmmmm §««mw flfl¥%.Ef.%"'§" W mmmwfim NEW Wm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EANGAJQRE
mmnnm THE rzm: my OF 8EP'I'EI«mE}2_ , x
BEFORE M U L Q ""
'PI-EH2)R"ELE A
cnmgggmnilon m.%17 * "
. 3
nman.
W10 % é
AGED wotrr
E.'3.'.V. 3:: s*17*AG12,v 4' _ _
aanGALoKE+5mw7;.'%'%V%TV*--. % mmwomm
4. canmax
(BY am: mgmsncmmnmmm S.H.BAS&VARAJU,
AD'JC2€$jLTE8) u * '-
H to-3003:, . mwme, KERDRIYA samm,
Iconawanscnam,
- 5:50 034. Rmpommm
Cflflfififi"
Am v,x.KAmYA:sm3wAmr,
% Apvocarm}
ififiii
Twat Crixmnal Patitiam are filed under Section 482
cf Cr.P.{3 graying to quash afi further in
oi" 120% :' t1zm
'*"""~"""* "'""""""*""""" """""**""* "'"*"'"'°'°"*'-**"'" W" *"'*'°""""°"'*"""'""'"'""""""*'"* """'*~*'" "=~"'W"*~""W= "M"? ¢>"w*'"W%'*'N~"~'W»*°"=-%»=*"&**'<~A'W= HKWH mwwrtw MW" mmmwmeemfiwnw. .5%""§€§'%$23",{F"'# wswmwzw Mr" %'z.'%n¢L""W'\°e",i"'k'&":5"%<é.~'.'5-<"x'¢'§3%4€'<'"§. WHQW %,»W&a%%'é'f'
>mt"€w"-"€MWii'#r.§
-2-
C.C.Nos.12G7I2008, 1208/ 20%, 1209/2008, 1203/
120410008, 1205/2008 and 1206/2008 r¢3apective1y_4r:;n.~.'4
the file of the Special Court {Ecxzaramic ~ V.
'mesa C.r:mma1' ' Petttian' eo:n1ng' 9:1 161- . 1' 1'
dqr,theCourtIxw.deth:efi3I1owing:--~ : " ._ ~1' V,
g:n§g , t
The petition-at is accusgd Ho.§..iz;ifa.pri§:atfi
filedunder sacrum 209 a' C"r.ié,a* iiafieny '§:n_:n1s' hable
under Seaman' 621_i{;1A) Iict, 1955
mearimgof Section 5 of thc
complied. with' the requzi t of
161 and 220 at' the Act ami they have
by not fixing the Bazaxacesheet, mm &
Awofiunt. Animal Ramzrm, ac. and not holding tlsw
. efikzme umlcr the provimrm of tha Ccmpasny
VV Law.
-3...
3. Based an the same, tha Ieamed
' and thm afim' <::m:m1dez1ng' ' the
alaotht: n:}.atm'ia1 produwd by tbs V'
we at' aummom. Tm >
befiretbe lcarmei Mawtmtg: L'
iar1me:~%, than Pfititinna A
4. Leasrnad submits the
oomlam' t allwd oflimce E
mt has mlied on the
by me Regismrr of
wlhmain it diacloaas um,
as Directnr uf the Commny ----
mm 09.o3.2oa1 itaelf and
L» aspect cannat be dispumd by the
E also aubmitted that. the cemplainant is
than the Regstwar of comm and ma
m%49'"¢BE¥Vi5V&r&""9xfl§dV"'&F§WaJP"'"Q ¥"'I1IW.éW¥5"W ewwm W mmmmm WW a;;mm° mmfig-§@:§@m w:::::~:;:«§ W mmmmm WWW emm
of Commnifi imelf haxlm isaued a mfied
af Form B332 am! having rewrded that, the
pefificnw has rmgnm as Directs: ef the Company, there
fig,
mmvamgwwmammmwa fimww mmewmzt ww" ?=E*k.e}'**©-.§"<Ic.%';'\'€\$**'*(z3§$"*'x'\§'*'£#"%» §""§W.'M"'%$ mwmmfi WW' §'$m35¥-'t;éEHI.fi"'<'és?'v»€"»EA%E%.»§'-V» fi'"r$W.,:z%§'."'~§ %m§$U§'§'§ KW; §"§§§5%§"§
wmwwvecwvmw mm wwwmmma
was no mason for the wmplafimxx to implcaci
pet'1tioIwa5a.ccused.D1recto' r.
5. In this regard, the 55:3;
make auhmfision. Learned '
dew not dispum the mf'
returm and as am}:
6. 2001, September
am: yaa.1'i.e. fur the ymr
k it is mt in dispute mat,
" {mi "" " ' ' was a Dimctcor and mfiht
return. The afleged ufiemm is for
k % Lk aubaaquégxt ' . It mm be saié that, the petitioner'
ham fixxbeci as a Direcrtar aftm the
--' and amptm The efimme alwti against
' petzititsxmds for auhaeqwxxt p-mind of rwigxatinn. If
thatisao,thaep~etit£omm1motbe}iabhe fcsrthaalmed
éxfi;
W wmu"mxmmnIn4v"?as¥fl9"%.ElWraW'%1 W"H"¢z.JW.'"§E MWWKE W mmmmm mm amam" W mmwgmam %<-§§€;%3%<% mzgwfir em": mW;:x'§;:am §~aa<@%w§"aEé§--é
-5-
ofieme, mmm for non-filirg of rerurm nor fer.T""mt
mmkgamannumamm-a1Mmmg* . % k
7. There is no athw contra j-fl"3fi
to show that, the: petixiongq A. "
09.03.2001. In «sum p6t zt' mnm*' k a Director 9.3 on ma ziate have ham cammstma, mg the mm.
s. are muwoa.
* ;;;_ * % 1207/2003, 1203/ 2008, 1209/251:9, . "1204/20:33, 1935/2995 and $2338 'Veil. of the Special Court (Econnmic ' re, as far as tlfis pctitiazzwr ia ceneermcl std/* EUDG-E