9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Relief sought under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 for non-deposit of provident fund or employees' State insurance dues. - Liability of a director for violations by the company under the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the Employees' State Insurance Act. - Applicability of relief provisions to a nominated director not involved in day-to-day management. - Prosecutions already initiated against the petitioner under the mentioned Acts. - Interpretation of the role of a director as an occupier under the Acts. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a director of a public limited company, filed a petition under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, seeking relief from liability for non-deposit of provident fund and insurance dues by the company. The petitioner argued that he should be excused as he was not directly involved in the company's management but was a nominated director due to his professional expertise as a chartered accountant. 2. The petitioner acknowledged the company's violations of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the Employees' State Insurance Act but claimed reasons beyond the company's control, such as financial difficulties and appointment of a Finance Controller by the bank, for non-compliance. The petitioner contended that he should not be personally liable for the company's actions as he was not directly managing its affairs. 3. The court considered the prosecutions already initiated against the petitioner under the mentioned Acts and the contention that he, as a director, was also an occupier under the Acts. The court emphasized the strict compliance required under the Acts and cited precedents to support the view that directors cannot escape liability for violations committed by the company, especially regarding employee contributions. 4. The court dismissed the petition, noting that the prosecutions against the petitioner were already ongoing, and it was not necessary to consider the defenses raised in the petition at that stage. The court held that the petitioner, being a director and occupier, could present defenses in the criminal courts where the prosecutions were lodged, and there was no ground to grant relief in the present petition. 5. The court concluded that the petitioner could raise defenses in the ongoing prosecutions and that there was no indication of harassment in the legal actions taken against the petitioner. The court emphasized that the petitioner's status as a director and occupier meant he had to face the legal consequences of the company's violations, leading to the dismissal of the petition without costs. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court regarding the petitioner's liability as a director in the company's violations of the mentioned Acts and the applicability of relief provisions under the Companies Act.
|
