Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (11) TMI 1865 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of Criminal Complaint under Sections 138, 141, and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on summoning order dated 28.10.2014. The main issue is the liability of the petitioner as a Director of the company for the bounced cheques despite resigning before the issuance of the cheques.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that he was neither a signatory to the cheques nor a Director of the company at the relevant time. He had resigned from the company before the issuance of the cheques, supported by documentary evidence. The petitioner contended that the summoning order against him was not maintainable due to his resignation and publication of the same in a newspaper. The petitioner also cited relevant case laws to support his argument.

Issue 2: Vicarious Liability of Directors
The petitioner emphasized that as per Sections 138 and 141 of the Act, a Director can be held liable under the principle of vicarious liability. However, specific averments must exist to show the Director's responsibility for the company's conduct. In this case, the petitioner had resigned before the cheques were issued, and he was not a signatory to the cheques. The court noted that continuing proceedings against the petitioner would result in a miscarriage of justice, citing previous judgments supporting this stance.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the Petition
The respondent argued that the petitioner could seek remedy through revision before the Sessions Court and thus the petition under Section 482 CrPC was not maintainable. The respondent relied on a relevant Supreme Court judgment to support this argument.

Judgment:
After considering the submissions and evidence, the court found that the petitioner was not liable as he was not a signatory to the cheques and had resigned from the company before the issuance of the cheques. The court emphasized that the petitioner's resignation had been accepted and notified, clearing him of any liability. Citing relevant case laws, the court quashed the criminal complaint and summoning order against the petitioner, setting aside all subsequent proceedings specifically against the petitioner.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates