JIYUAN LI Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitions assail the order dated 11.09.2007 passed by the Ld. Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) summoning the petitioners in CC No. 939/07.

(2.) The brief facts are that the Respondent/ Complainant i.e. Registrar of Companies (ROC) received a complaint regarding the affairs of M/s. Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) being irregular and illegal. A letter dated 24.02.2004 was issued by the ROC to the company to inquire about its affairs. This was duly replied vide letter dated 15.04.2004. The reply was examined and thereafter an order dated 19.04.2004 under section 234(1) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to the Act ) was issued to the company which remained unresponded. Thereafter another order dated 16.06.2004 u/s 234 (3A) of the Act was issued by ROC requesting the Company to furnish the desired information, but no response was received. As no response was received qua the aforesaid two orders, a show cause notice dated 26.07.2005 was issued to the company u/s 234 (4)(a) of the Act which also did not evoke any response. Thereafter a report was sent by ROC to the Central Government in terms of section 234 (6) of the Act seeking advice for prosecution of company u/s 234 of the Act. It was thereafter that the Complaint (CC No. 939/2007) was filed in the Court of ACMM by the ROC against the Company and its functionaries including the petitioners. The ACMM passed the impugned order of summoning of all the accused including the petitioners.

(3.) The impugned order is assailed mainly on the ground that the same has been passed in a mechanical manner without ensuring that mandatory and statutory notice under Section 234 of the Act was issued to the petitioners. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Amit Kumar Singh, 2009 160 DLT 478 and Harman Electronics & Anr v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd, 2009 1 SCC 720.