Calcutta High Court High Court

M/S. Theta Computer Services Pvt. … vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 8 June, 2011

Calcutta High Court
M/S. Theta Computer Services Pvt. … vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 8 June, 2011
Author: I. P. Mukerji


CA No.456 of 2011
With
CP No.456 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE

In the matter of:

M/s. Theta Computer Services Pvt. Ltd.

(In Liquidation)
And
HDFC Bank Ltd.

Before:

The Hon’ble Justice
I.P. Mukerji
Date: 08.06.2011

Appearance:

Mr. A. Mitra Adv.,

The Court: This is an application by the petitioning creditor in a

winding up application. The winding up order was made on 31st

January, 2011. Under Section 445 of the Companies Act, 1956, the

petitioner was required to file a certified copy of the order with the

Registrar of Companies, West Bengal within 30 days of the date of the

order.

Such was not done. On 6th April, 2011 the office of the Registrar of

Companies issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why

prosecution should not be instituted against them under Section 445. In
2

that Section, in default of the above compliance, the petitioner is liable to

face prosecution and imposition of fine.

This Judge’s Summons was taken out on 25th April, 2011, after

issuance of the above show cause notice. It is averred that the winding

up order could not be filed due to inadvertence and oversight.

Affidavit of service is on record. None appears on behalf of the

Registrar of Companies.

There are no details as to how this oversight occurred. Neither are

there any reasons for “inadvertence”. However, it is specifically pleaded

that there was no intention to violate the statute.

The question of intention in an alleged act of violation of a statute

would have been more relevant in a criminal proceeding.

Here, this Court is not concerned with determination of such

“intention”.

In my view, non-filing of a winding up order is a very minor matter

and does not have any serious consequences. Moreover, there is a

pleading that there was mistake on the part of the petitioner. That in my

opinion could be possible. Everybody may not know all the requirements

of the statute.

Considering the minor nature of the violation, I allow the petitioner

to file the certified copy of the above order with the Registrar of

Companies within 15th June, 2011. But I have also considered that such

leniency may give encouragement to others, not to file winding up orders
3

with the Registrar of Companies, within time. In that view of the matter,

the petitioner will be permitted to file the order as above, upon payment

of cost assessed at Rs.3000/- to the Registrar of Companies.

This application is accordingly allowed.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order

on the usual undertakings.

(I.P. Mukerji, J.)

SP/