Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 283 (1) g in Roc vs M/S Gomukh Finance & Investment Ltd. on 17 August, 2012Matching Fragments
8. The case of the prosecution is that the company did not obtain prior approval of the Central Government before granting loan of Rs.4.36 lacs to M/s Gomukh Hotesl Pvt. Ltd. on various dates between 16.09.95 and 28.06.96 which was in the excess of the prescribed limit of 30% of its paid up capital and free reserves Rs.6.16 lacs as on 31.03.96. This fact has not been disputed. Though in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. both accused have taken a specific defence that they are/were not responsible for the affairs of the company as they were not the directors of the company. They have also relied upon complaint Ex. PW1/DA i.e complaints made by the accused with the ROC (original of Ex. DW2/A to Ex. DW2/DG are on the case file no. 1227/3/09 to1230/3/09). In the letters Ex. PW1/DB and Ex. PW1/DE both accused themselves admitted that they were appointed as director of the accused company in the year 1995 but they have taken a defence that neither any notice for the meeting of Board of Directors was received and nor any board meeting was attended by them as such they are ceased to be a director of the company u/s 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act and it is understood that the company has not dropped their name from its directors which is illegal. This court does not find any force in this plea. If it was the case, the accused ought to have take appropriate steps for removal of their names from the directors of the company. Accused ought to have resigned the company as per the prescribed provisions of Companies Act and they would have to file form ROC vs M/s Gomukh Finance & Investments Ltd. 6 of 7 32 in this regard. But accused did not do so. Accused have also not examined any witness to prove on record that they were not the director and responsible for the affairs of the company. Mere filing of complaint Ex.PW1/DA is not sufficient to presume that accused were not directors of the company at the relevant time and they were not responsible for affairs of the company. Except bald statement accused have not produced anything on record to show that they were not directors of the company at the relevant time and were not responsible for affairs of the company and compliance of provisions of section 370 of the Companies Act.