I move amendment No. 43 :
To insert a new subsection as follows:
" (2) The grant of relief by the court under this section shall, if the court so directs, not have the effectof relieving the company or its officers of any liability already incurred under section 100.”
This restores the provision deleted by amendment No. 38.
That is right. The clause is being brought forward here.
The important thing is " if the court so directs ". In other words, it is up to the court to grant the actual relief and still leave the penalty.
That is right.
The only thing that is still a little bit difficult is, there are two separate jurisdictions here—a criminal and a civil jurisdiction. Is it the same court ? Presumably, if there is a penalty involved in the thing, and if the officers are being prosecuted at the suit of the Attorney General for having failed to do something, that is one thing. On the other hand, if there is an application for the extension of time, that will be made before another judge and that is another thing. As between the two, which court directs in this case ? It says " if the court directs ".
There is only one court involved. It is the High Court. I think different judges or members of a High Court could be involved, but I do not think it matters.
Supposing it comes to the notice of the Attorney General that an officer of the company has failed to comply with the law and has committed an offence under Section 100, a charge can be brought and prosecuted by the Registrar of Companies. Supposing it is brought by somebody else, and even if it is brought by the Registrar of Companies, surely it is a criminal proceeding and would come before a criminal court. I mean, that is a possibility, if taken up that way. On the other hand, the application for extension of time would be before another judge. Which judge is to do the directing ?
That is a question I could not answer very easily.
It is the court that is granting relief under the amendment; in other words, the court that is giving the extension of time.
As I understand the situation, without this amendment, if the court decided that they would give an extension of time for registration and so benefit the lender, they could only do that at the same time as exonerating the official of the company from all blame. Now they are able to give the lender the benefit and give the lender the benefit while not exonerating the official of the company from his responsibilities. Is that not the situation ?
That is it.
That is it.
Then it means that the judge who makes the order must do it?
Yes.
Then it means that if such an order for extension has been given, and there is not a direction it is an offence?
Yes.
