HANUMAN PERSHAD GUPTA Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 8 connected revisions raise common questions of fact and law and may be disposed of by the same judgment. The above revisions arise out of complaints filed by one Hira Lal, opposite party, under Section 207 of the Indian Companies Act against the first applicant Sri Hanuman Prasad Gupta, Director in Charge, M/s. Iron Traders Private, Ltd. , and the second applicant Sri Wisakha Singh, the Managing Director.

(2.) THE opposite party is admittedly a shareholder of the Company aforesaid. His case was that he had not been paid dividend which had been declared by the Company during the years in question and, therefore, the applicants were liable to be punished. The complaints were filed in the court of a Magistrate, first class, at Meerut. After examining the complainant the Magistrate issued summons for the attendance of the accused under Section 204 (1), Cr. P. C. The applicants made an application disputing the jurisdiction of the Meerut court to take cognisance of the offence. They contended that as the registered office of the Company was situate in Delhi and the failure to pay dividend or to post warrants of payments in respect thereof to the share-holders occurred at Delhi, the Meerut court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The Magistrate repelled the objection and held that as the payment of dividend had to be made at the registered address of the share-holder, which in the instant case was at Meerut, the Meerut court was competent to entertain the complaints. The Sessions Judge affirmed the order of the Magistrate and hence the revisions.

(3.) SRI P. C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, contended that the Meerut court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because the payment of dividend was to be made in the manner provided in Section 207 of the Companies Act. That section, according to him, required payment of the dividend to the share-holder within 42 days from the date of declaration of dividends by posting warrants in respect of the dividends within the said period. Since the posting of the warrant had to be done at Delhi, that court alone was competent to entertain the complaints.