Rank Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 26 of 1999, on the file of the special judge for economic offences, hyderabad, against the petitioners for the offences under section 73(2b) of the companies act, 1956, for failure to comply with the provisions of sub-section (2) thereof.a. gopal reddy, j.1. this is a petition filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in c. c. no. 26 of 1999, on the file of the special judge for economic offences, hyderabad, against the petitioners for the offences under section 73(2b) of the companies act, 1956, for failure to comply with the provisions of sub-section (2) thereof.2. it is not disputed that the first petitioner is the company and the second petitioner is the managing director and the third petitioner is the executive director of the first petitioner-company. the first petitioner issued a prospectus to the public offering 52 lakhs equity shares of rs. 10 each and it was opened to the public on january 27, 1993, and the said issue was closed on february 1, 1993. while so, one ramprasad gupta and arun kumar made a complaint on april 15, 1998, and april 13, 1998, respectively to the hyderabad stock exchange, who in turn forwarded the same to the registrar of companies for taking legal action. in the said complaint, the above persons stated that they have applied for 100 equity shares of rs. 10 each during the public issue made by the accused in the year 1993, but no shares were allotted and as such, the company ought to have refunded the share application of rs. 1,000 and rs. 2,000 to them. hence, on july 8, 1998, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners to show cause why action should not be initiated under section 73(2b) of the companies act, 1956. as the petitioners did not respond to the said notice, the petitioners were prosecuted for the alleged offences. questioning the same, the present petition is filed.3. learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as the said public issue was closed on february 1, 1993, the complaint made by the above persons on april 15, 1998 and april 13, 1998, is barred by limitation as per section 468(2) of the code of criminal procedure and hence, the proceedings can be quashed.4. the said submission has to be considered in the light of the provisions of the companies act. section 621 of the companies act prohibits taking cognizance of the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by any company or any officer thereof, except on the complaint in writing of the registrar, or of a shareholder of the company, or of a person authorized by the central government in that behalf.5. in view of the provisions of the companies act, the subscribers can only make a complaint to the stock exchange where they have subscribed the equity shares and in turn, the stock exchange informs the same to the registrar of companies-first respondent-who can initiate the prosecution for violations. in the present case on hand, the offence committed by the petitioners had come to knowledge of the first respondent-complainant for the first time on july 1, 1998, when the complaint was received from hyderabad stock exchange. as per section 469(1)(b) of the criminal procedure code, the period of limitation would commence from the day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of prosecuting agency.6. in view of the foregoing discussion, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint is barred by limitation cannot be accepted as the offence had come to the knowledge of the first respondent on july 1, 1998 and soon after having knowledge of the said offence, prosecution was launched against the petitioners. therefore, proceedings in c. c. no. 26 of 1999, cannot be quashed on the ground that launching of prosecution is barred by limitation.7. accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.