Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases1795/2023
THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Vs.
SINDOZ RESOURCES AND TRADING PLATFORM PVT LTD & ORS
14.11.2024
Present: None.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of
complainant for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint.
2. It is submitted that present complaint has been filed by the
complainant against the respondents on 04.09.2023 for violation of section
149 of Companies Act 2013, which as per section 172 of the Companies
Act 2013 is punishable with fine only. It is submitted that as per directions
of the Ministry of Co-operate Affairs, the inspection of company M/s
Sindoz Resources & Trading Platform Pvt. Ltd was carried out by the
officer of Directorate and inspection report dated 19.03.2021 was submitted
to the Ministry. It is submitted that the competent authority i.e. Reasonal
Director had given sanction to the ROC vide letter dated 30.03.2022 to
prosecute the respondents. It is submitted that due to unavoidable reasons
the complaint could not be filed within six months of sanction as there was
inspection drive in the office of ROC and there has been frequent transfer
and posting in the office of the complainant. A request has been made to
condone the delay of 11 months and 4 days and to take cognizance on the
present complaint.
3. Respondents did not turn up despite giving sufficient
opportunities for hearing on the application seeking condonation of delay.
Accordingly, the court has proceeded to decide this application as per
record after hearing the submissions of Ld. Company Prosecutor, as
respondents have not utilized the opportunities including last and final
opportunity on 23.10.2024. Respondents have not yet filed any written
submissions.
-- 1 of 3 --
4. From the perusal of record and consideration of arguments, the
court is of considered opinion that there does not exist any law for seeking
the sanction of competent authority for filing the present complaint. There
is no doubt that appropriate authorities had knowledge regarding the
default committed by respondents on the date of filing of inspection report
i.e. 19.03.2021 and accordingly, the period of limitation should start from
19.03.2021. When limitation is counted from this date, the same shall
expire on 19.09.2021. No specific reason for not filing the complaint from
20.09.2021 till the date of actual filing nor specific logic or justification for
condonation of delay from 20.09.2021 till the actual date of filing the
complaint has been mentioned by the complainant. The complainant has
also not cited any specific reason for not filing the present complaint within
time extended by hon’ble Apex Court vide its suo moto judgment i.e. In
the Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction Miscellaneous
Application No. 21 of 2022, In Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of
2021, In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 In Re: Cognizance
For Extension Of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No. 29 Of
2022, In Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021, In Suo Motu Writ
Petition (C) Of 2020.
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Partha Ghosh vs ROC in
paragraph no.11 of its judgment has relied upon the previous judgment of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kavi Arora vs ROC, wherein it has been
observed that :
“Thus the time period taken by the Regional Director to
take the decision to direct the Registrar of Companies to
launch prosecution cannot be excluded for the purpose of
computing the period of limitation as both the Regional
Director i.e. the Central Government as well as the
Registrar of Companies was competent to launch
prosecution once they had knowledge of the commission
of the offences as on 24th June, 2013 i.e. when the
inspection reports were filed with either of them. Since
for the offences under Section 211(7), 211(3A), (3B) and
(3C) of the Act, no consent / sanction for prosecution
from the Central Government is required. Section 470(3)
-- 2 of 3 --
Cr.P.C cannot be relied upon by the respondents.
Admittedly, Section 211 of the Act is punishable with six
months imprisonment and fine. Under Section 468
Cr.P.C- no court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year from the date of offence or the date of knowledge
of the offence. Admittedly, the Inspector submitted his
inspection report on 245th June, 2013 and the said
complaint was only filed on 18th September, 2014 after the
expiry of a year from the date of knowledge of the offence
as provided under Section 468(2)(b)Cr.P.C.
The law with regard to the condonation of delay in criminal
matters is clear, as per which, for taking cognizance after the expiry of
period of limitation, either the reason of delay should be explained or the
complainant should explain that it is necessary to take cognizance in the
interest of justice. However, it has not been explained either in application
or during arguments.
5. In view of above discussion, the present application
dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
(Mayank Mittal)
ACMM (Special Acts): Central District:
THC: Delhi: 14.11.2024
-- 3 of 3 --