Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 2442/2023
THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Vs.
SHRI AMARJEET SINGH CHAWLA
CNR No. DLCT02-028951-2023
18.10.2024
At 4.00 pm
Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of complainant
for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint.
It is submitted that present complaint has been filed by the complainant
against the respondents on 30.10.2023 for violation of section 129 r/w AS 20 of
Companies Act 2013, which as per section 129(7) of the Companies Act 2013 is
punishable with imprisonment upto one year or fine or both. It is submitted that as per
directions of the Ministry of Co-operate Affairs, the inspection of company M Sons Exims
Pvt. Ltd. was carried out by the officer of Directorate and inspection report dated
15.06.2020 was submitted to the Ministry. It is submitted that the competent authority i.e.
Regional Director had given sanction to the ROC vide letter dated 01.06.2021 to prosecute
the respondents. It is submitted that due to unavoidable reasons the complaint could not be
filed within one year 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 1 year, 10 months and 29 days and to take cognizance
on the present complaint.
The Ld. Counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the application
seeking condonation of delay. It is submitted that there does not exist any law for seeking
the sanction/ permission for filing the present complaint by the complainant and even
otherwise no such provision of law has been shown by the complainant during its
-- 1 of 4 --
Ct. Cases 2442/2023
-2-
arguments. Further, it is submitted that there is no doubt that even before the filing of
report of inspection dated 15.06.2020, the department knew the default committed by the
company and its director. It is submitted that even if the date of inspection report is to be
considered the date for starting the period of limitation, the same expires on expiry of one
year i.e. 15.06.2021. It is submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court in 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 had given 90 days period (starting from
01.03.2022) to all those litigants, where the period of limitation ends between 15.03.2020
to 28.02.2022, to file the litigation, however, the complainant did not bother itself to file
the present complaint even within the extended time. It is submitted that when
complainant did not exercise its right to file the present complaint within the extended
time granted by Hon’ble Apex Court, they are not entitled to further extension of
limitation. A prayer has been made to dismiss the application and complaint.
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. 15.06.2020 and accordingly, the period of limitation should start
from 15.06.2020. When limitation is counted from this date, the same shall expire on
15.06.2021. No specific reason for not filing the complaint from 15.06.2021 till the date of
actual filing nor specific logic or justification for condonation of delay from 15.06.2021
till the actual date of filing the complaint has been mentioned by the complainant. As per
-- 2 of 4 --
Ct. Cases 2442/2023
-3-
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Supra), the complainant has
to be given a fresh period of limitation of one year from 01.03.2022 as the period of
limitation in the present complaint should start from the Covid period. Even if, the one
year limitation counted from 01.03.2022, the same expires on 01.03.2023. 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 Motu Writ Petition (Supra).
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) 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.
-- 3 of 4 --
Ct. Cases 2442/2023
-4-
In view of above discussion, the present is application dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(Mayank Mittal)
ACJM(Special Acts) : Central District:
THC: Delhi: 18.10.2024
-- 4 of 4 --