9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted to interfere with the proceedings in EOCC No. 114 of 2007, and quash the same as against the petitioner/third accused alone. Criminal original petition allowed. - CRL. O.P. NO. 35361 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2009 - C.S. KARNAN, J. Rajah and Venkatesan for the Appellant. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has filed the above criminal original petition to call for the records in EOCC No. 114 of 2007 filed by the respondent abovenamed and pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate s Court (Economic Offences- II), Egmore, Chennai-600 008 and quash the same. 2. The respondent s case is that the complainant filed the complaint under section 159 rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used No. 3 s contention is that he was a non-executive director of the first accused-company and he resigned as early as 13-3-1998, itself. So, he cannot be held responsible for the alleged violations that occurred in the year 2006. Whatever the complaint which has been made against the accused persons will not bind the third accused/the petitioner herein. The petitioner pointed out that he has received a show-cause notice dated 2-7-1998, from the Registrar of Companies requiring him to show cause why action should not be taken against him for his failure to provide details regarding the company. The petitioner vide his letter dated 11-7-1998, replied that he had resigned from the company in March, 1998 and had nothing to do with the work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 13-3-1998". 6. Learned counsel argued for their respective parties. The petitioner s counsel cited a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Saumil Dilip Mehta v. State of Maharashtra [2003] 113 Comp. Cas. 443 1 . The operative portion of the said judgment is as follows : "When a director has tendered his resignation and the board of directors has accepted it and has acted on it, such a director cannot be held liable for the liability incurred by the said company after the date of acceptance of his resignation except the liability which has been incurred by him for purchase of shares of the said company and nothing more." (p. 447) 7. In spite of the fact that the petitioner communicated a letter to the respondent that he resi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
