STATE OF U.P. Vs. TIKA RAM UNIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice has been issued to the opposite party, Tika Ram Uniyal, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court in disobeying the order passed by the District Judge of Kumaun on July 9, 1960, directing him as the managing director of the Garhwal Farmers and Industrial Traders Co. Ltd. to furnish returns to the Registrar of Companies within a certain period.

(2.) From the affidavit filed on behalf of the Registrar of Companies it appears that notice was sent to Tika Ram Uniyal on Oct. 22, 1954, inviting his attention to the provisions of sections 32(3) and 134(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and requiring him to submit the annual summary of capital and other documents in respect of the calendar year 1953. The required documents were not filed, and the Registrar accordingly made an application under Sec. 249A on Dec. 30, 1954. Notice was issued thereon to all the five directors of the company and it was found that all were agreed that Tika Ram Uniyal was the managing director. Time was granted to him to furnish the necessary returns, but he failed to do so. On May 21, 1959, he appeared in court and put forward the excuse that a certain Kundam Singh Rawat had been managing the farms of the company at certain places in Bijnor District and had not submitted any accounts ; but when the aforesaid Kundam Singh Rawat was summoned to the court of the District Judge he refuted these allegations and denied that he had ever been in charge of any farm. At this stage, Tika Ram Uniyal absented himself from the court; and therefore on July 9, 1960, the District Judge passed final orders requiring him to furnish returns to the Registrar within two months, threatening him with proceedings for contempt of court if he failed to do so. Subsequently, further time was granted to him, but still he failed to comply with the order; and eventually the District Judge was obliged to refer the matter to this court on April 21, 1962, for necessary action.

(3.) The opposite party has twice been granted time for the purpose of filing a reply to the affidavit of the Registrar of Companies but has failed to file any such reply. The allegations contained in the Registrar's affidavit thus stand uncontroverted and may be taken as proved. A suggestion has been made before me today by learned counsel for the opposite party that the required returns have since been furnished to the Registrar, but there is nothing whatsoever on the record to show that there is any substance in this assertion. In any case the opposite party is clearly guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with the orders of the District Judge within the time allowed by the District Judge.