9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings initiated under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881. The case of the appellants is that the complaint was not maintainable in absence of basic ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881. It is stated that the appellants were Directors and Managing Director of another company i.e. M/s. Som Distilleries Limited, and a cheque was issued by the company known as M/s. Som Distilleries & Breweries Limited which had a separate legal entity. The High Court notices the aforesaid submission but refused to entertain the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the same with the following observation : &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re drawer of the cheque in connection with which the impugned complaint has been filed by the respondent. Neither the account No.1060 in Bank of India, Mayapuri Industrial Area Branch, New Delhi belongs to M/s Som Distilleries Limited nor the cheque No.547419 dated 9.2.2002 was ever issued by the said company. 7. That the above said cheque in fact was issued by the company known as Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd. which company having a separate legal entity by virtue of being separately registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and can sue or be sued in their own names. It has it registered office at A-1, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi - 110 029. The certificate issued by Bank of India in this regard is annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. On the basis of stand taken by respondent therein, the Criminal Misc. filed by Som Distilleries was allowed and the complaint and summoning order were quashed with respect to Som Distilleries Limited through its Managing Director, Shri A.K. Arora. A true copy of the order dated 28.8.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court is annexed as Annexure P-7." Though same submissions have been made before this Court, the respondents have not denied the aforesaid statements. Similar question fell for consideration before three-Judge Bench of this Court in 'Anita Hada Versus Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited', (2012) 5 SCC 661; the proposition of law was noticed by this Court at paragraph 1 as quoted below : & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words "as well as the company" appearing in the Section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a director is indicted. 59. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
