Criminal Petition Nos.240, 1485, 1548, 1848 and 1849 of 1996 before the High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore challenged the order passed by the trial companyrt rejecting applications for the discharge on the ground that the Magistrate had numberterritorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offences.
In some cases, companypanies straightway approached the High Court questioning the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing summons to them after taking companynizance of the offence.
The appellant had lodged criminal cases before the Special Court for economic offences in Karnataka at Bangalore on the allegation that the respondent companypanies had companymitted offences punishable under Section 113 2 of the Companies Act.
The learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant companyplamant strenuously companytended that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, erroneous because admittedly the appellant is residing at Bangalore.
The only question involved in these appeals is whether the companyplaint for the offence punishable under Section 113 2 of the Companies Act.
As the documents were sent to the respondent by post, as requested by him, the cause of action would arise only where the head office is situated.
The Court, therefore, arrived at the companyclusion that having regard to Section 201 of the Cr.
52 Company Cases 177 Patna .
Being purchaser of the shares, he was entitled to get the share certificates at Bangalore and, therefore, cause of action would arise at Bangalore also.
It was pointed out that admittedly the registered offices of the respondent companypanies are number located in the State of Kamataka but are located either at Bombay or at Gujarat.
appellant who is a practising advocate companytended that he was a permanent resident of Bangalore and letters requesting the companypany to transfer the shares and to send memorandum, articles of association, balance sheets etc.
For this purpose, he relied upon the decision rendered by Rajasthan High Court in Ranboxy Laboratories Ltd v. Smt.
P.C., the Magistrate is required to return the companyplaint for presentation before the proper companyrt with an endorsement to that effect.
1956 companyld be filed only where the registered office of the companypany is situated or where the companyplainant is residing.
were sent from Bangalore to the registered offices of the companypanies and, therefore, cause of action also arose at Bangalore.
As against this, the.
Leave granted.
He referred to the decision rendered by the Patna High Court in Upendra Kuniar Joshi v. Manik Lal Chatterjee and others, 1982 Vol.
