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 Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2009 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (11) TMI 513 - HC - Companies Law


Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Criminal Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Vicarious liability of the petitioner under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Resignation of the petitioner as a director and its effect on liability.
4. Applicability of legal precedents and statutory interpretations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner sought to quash Criminal Complaint Nos. 1367 of 2008 and 1368 of 2008, filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaints alleged that the cheques issued by the accused were dishonored due to "funds insufficient," leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.

2. Vicarious liability of the petitioner under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The respondent claimed that the petitioner, along with other accused, was responsible for the management and day-to-day affairs of the company, thus making him vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the petitioner argued that he had resigned as a director before the issuance of the cheques and was not responsible for the company's affairs at the relevant time.

3. Resignation of the petitioner as a director and its effect on liability:
The petitioner provided a certified copy of Form No. 32, showing his resignation as a director effective from 30-4-2003. The court accepted this document as authentic and conclusive evidence that the petitioner was not a director when the cheques were issued. The court referred to the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Sarla Kumar v. SREI International Finance Ltd., where the petitioner's resignation was accepted based on Form No. 32, leading to the quashing of the complaint.

4. Applicability of legal precedents and statutory interpretations:
The court examined several precedents, including K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, to determine the requirements for establishing vicarious liability under Section 141. The court emphasized that a specific averment in the complaint is necessary to show how the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business. In this case, the complaint failed to disclose the petitioner's status in the company after his resignation and did not provide any evidence of his involvement in the issuance or dishonor of the cheques.

The court concluded that the petitioner, having resigned as a director, could not be held vicariously liable under Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Additionally, there were no allegations of consent, connivance, or negligence on the part of the petitioner to attract liability under Section 141(2). Consequently, the court quashed the complaints against the petitioner, allowing the prosecution of other accused persons to continue.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates