Madras Flying Club Ltd. & Ors. v. Deputy Registrar of Companies & Anr.

COMPANIES ACT, 2013,

--Power to call for information, inspect books and conduct inquiries--Complaint against company and its directors for non-furnishing of information Petition for quashment of proceedings --Absence of specific averment in complaint that directors responsible for conduct of business of company--Where RoC filed complaint before Magistrate against company and its directors for non-compliance of section 206, but there were no specific averments in the complaint that the directors were officers who were in default to attract within meaning of section 2(60)(vi), therefore, the complaint could not be sustained, thus, the proceedings on the file of Magistrate were quashed.--RoC issued notice under section 206 to the company, but the company failed to furnish any information or produce any documents required under section 206. Therefore, the RoC filed complaint before Magistrate against the company and its directors. The company filed petition for quashment of the proceedings on the ground that there should be no specific averments and allegations in the complaint that the directors were in charge and were responsible for conduct of the business of the company. Held: It was seen from the entire complaint that there was no specific averments and allegations as against the company as well as other directors. There were no specific averments in the complaint that the directors were officers who were in default to attract within meaning of section 2(60)(vi). The RoC failed to state specific averments. Therefore, the complaint could not be sustained. Thus, the proceedings on the file of Magistrate were quashed.

Companies Act, 2013, Section 206

REFERRED : State of NCT of Delhi v. Rajiv Khurana (2010) 104 SCL 671 (SC) : 2011 TaxPub(CL) 0148 (SC);KK. Ahuja v. VK. Vora (2009) 94 SCL 140 (SC) : 2009 TaxPub(CL) 503 (SC); Gorige Pentaiah v. State of AP. & Ors. in (CRL.A. 1311 of 2008, dt. 20-8-2008)