9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of ANEETA HADA VERSUS GODFATHER TRAVELS TOURS (P.) LTD. [ 2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that the proceedings without making the Company a party was not maintainable. The complaint itself was not maintainable without the corporate entity being made as a party but having brought only the Board of Directors or the officers of the Company as accused. Criminal Petitions are allowed. - Criminal Petition No. 6526 of 2018 C/S Criminal Petition No. 5230 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2021 - Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, J. For the Petitioner : Sri C.H. Jadhav, Senior Counsel for, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav And Sri Harsha M., Advocates (Video Conferencing). For the Respondent : Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court. 4. Crl.P.No.5230/2018 bears the same facts except the fact that the complainant is different. Therefore, the aforesaid facts are not reiterated. 5. Heard Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners and Smt. Namitha Mahesh. B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents in both the petitions. 6. The common ground inter alia taken up in these proceedings are that the Company which ran the chit fund is not made a party to these proceedings and unless, the Company is a party, the petition would not be maintainable. 7. The issue with regard to whether the proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner alone who is an employee of the Company and not the Company, is no lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 141 of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the proceedings without making the Company a party was not maintainable. 8. The said judgment is followed in plethora of orders passed by the Co-ordinate benches of this Court, one of which is cited herein is, in the case of Mr. Arvind Mediratta V. State of Karnataka [Crl.R.P. No.344/2017 and connected cases dd. 16-03-2017] - wherein this Court has held as follows: 8. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions of the learned senior counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 9. In the light of the submissions of the parties, the point that arises for consideration of this court is; Whether the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany is mentioned. It is one thing to say that the company is the accused represented by its Director and it is another to say that an individual being described as a Director in a particular company satisfies the requirement of law. An individual can be a member on the Board of several companies. Unless a company, which is a juristic person, is arraigned as a party, the Labour Department could not have initiated prosecution only against an individual. In the circumstances, respectfully following the Authority in the case of ANEETA HADA (supra), in my view, the complaints filed by the Senior Labour Inspector qua an individual without the Corporate entity being made as a member, were not maintainable. In the circumstances, these petitions m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
