Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2008 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 420 - SUPREME COURTWhether for purposes of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is sufficient if the substance of the allegation read as a whole fulfil the requirements of the said section and it is not necessary to specifically state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company? Whether a director of a company would be deemed to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for conduct of the business of the company and, therefore, deemed to be guilty of the offence unless he proves to the contrary? Even if it is held that specific averments are necessary, whether in the absence of such averments the signatory of the cheque and/or the managing directors or joint managing director who admittedly would be in charge of the company and responsible to the company for conduct of its business could be proceeded against? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Accused No. 2 is Paresh Rajda, the Chairman of the Company, and as per the impugned judgment of the High Court, the question of his responsibility for the business of the Company has not been seriously challenged. We, nonetheless, find clear allegations against both the accused/appellants to the effect that they were officers and responsible for the affairs of the company. We are of the opinion that at a stage where the trial has not yet started, it would be inappropriate to quash the proceedings against them in the light of the observations of this Court quoted above.
|