Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2010 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURTDishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds in account - Held that:- SLP dismissed. In this case, save and except for the statement that the Respondents, Mr. Rajiv Jain and Sarla Jain and some of the other accused, were Directors of the accused Companies and were responsible and liable for the acts of the said Companies, no specific allegation has been made against any of them. The question of proving a fact which had not been mentioned in the complaint did not, therefore, arise in the facts of this case. This has prompted the High Court to observe that the Bank had relied on the mistaken presumption that as Directors, Rajiv Jain, Sarla Jain and the other Directors were vicariously liable for the acts of the Company. Admittedly, except for the aforesaid statement, no other material has been disclosed in the complaint to make out a case against the respondents that they had been in charge of the affairs of the Company and were responsible for its action. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that in the absence of any specific charge against the Respondents, the complaint was liable to be quashed and the respondents were liable to be discharged. As to the submission made on behalf of the Bank that they were holders in due course of the four cheques issued by the Respondent No. 3 Company and that by presenting them to the Petitioner Bank for encashment, the Respondent No. 1 Company had become liable for dishonour thereof, has been adequately dealt with and negated by the High Court and does not require any further elaboration.
|