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 - 2019 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (4) TMI 791 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
Petitioner's liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on vicarious liability and non-resident Indian (NRI) status.

Analysis:
The judgment arises from six criminal complaints alleging offenses under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaints were against the petitioner and a company, both accused of dishonoring cheques totaling ?6 crores and 30 lacs. The petitioner was accused based on vicarious liability due to his role in the company's day-to-day affairs. The Metropolitan Magistrate found grounds to proceed against the petitioner, leading to the impugned orders.

The petitioner, claiming NRI status and non-involvement in the company's affairs, argued against vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act. He cited an income tax assessment order and board meeting minutes to support his position. However, the respondent countered, alleging the petitioner's active role in the company's management, despite the absence of a rejoinder from the petitioner.

During the hearing, evidence presented by the complainant, including board meeting minutes and reports to the registrar of companies, indicated the petitioner's significant involvement as Chairman-cum-Managing Director with the largest stake in the company. The petitioner's counsel failed to refute this evidence or specify any cessation in his responsibilities over time, leading to the court deeming his contentions vague and nonspecific.

The court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing that the petitioner's factual contentions should be addressed during trial rather than under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment highlighted that the petitioner's defenses and factual disputes require evidence in the trial court, resulting in the dismissal of the petitions with costs imposed on the petitioner.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates