Case Law Details
ROC Vs Sh. Roop Kishore Madan (Tis Hazari Court, Delhi)
Whether the accused Roop Kishore Madan is/was Director in more than 20 companies on the date of filing of the complaint: The onus is upon the complainant to prove that accused Roop Kishore Madan was Director in more than the number of companies which is permissible under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013. CW-1 has proved Ex. CW-1/1 & Ex. CW-1/2 to show the Directorship of accused. I have perused the documents. The Ex. CW-1/1 was taken from the MCA portal which reflects name and address details of the accused along with DIN No. Ex. CW-1/2 shows a list of companies in which the DIN number of accused is used for his appointment as Director.
Under the Rule 16 of The Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules 2014, the accused has the responsibility being Director to forward to the Registrar copy of resignation along with the applicable fees in Form DIR-11 within 30 days of such resignation. The claim of accused that the company had not filed form DIR-12 and therefore, he was not liable is rejected. It is admitted position that accused has not filed the said Form DIR-11. No reason has been adduced for such non filing which may save the accused from the present prosecution. It has come on record that accused was the Director in more than 20 companies as reflected in Ex. CW-1/2.
No evidence has been led to show submission of resignation before 01.04.15 by the accused. Accordingly, accused Roop Kishore Madan is convicted for the offence under Section 165(6) for contravention of Section 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
FULL TEXT OF DELHI DISTRICT COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
