9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, it is clear that their conviction was not justified. In the present case, there is no finding either by the Magistrate or by the High Court that the sale in contravention of Clause 5 of the Iron & Steel (Control) Order was made by the Company. In fact, the Company was not charged with the offence at all. The liability of the persons in charge of the Company only arises when the contravention is by the Company itself. Since, in this case, there is no evidence and no finding that the Company contravened Clause 5 of the Iron & Steel (Control) Order, the two respondents could not be held responsible. The actual contravention was by Kamdar and Villabhadas Thacker and any contravention by them would not fasten responsibility on the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar was the godown clerk of the Company at the Yard. He is the brother of respondent No. 1. One Vallabhadas Thacker was the representative of another firm G. Ramji and Co. who had plots allotted to them in Royapuram Goods Yard adjacent to the plots of the Firm. The case for the prosecution was that 48.350 tons of pig iron were supplied to the Company by Bhilai Steel Plants against an allotment order passed by the Iron and Steel Controller. The price of pig iron was fixed at ₹ 250 per ton by the Iron and Steel Controller under the Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956. The goods were received at the Yard on 6th July, 1963 and were unloaded in the plots assigned to the Firm. Kamdar took delivery of the goods on behalf of the Company after p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from the Railway by Kamdar on behalf of the Company; that the two respondents were in de facto management of the affairs of the Company and knew of the arrival of the goods, and that the goods were disposed of at a price higher than the controlled price by Vallabhadas Thacker with the aid of Kamdar. There was no finding that, in the sale itself, either of these two respondents took any active part. He, however, recorded the conviction because he found that the goods had been lying in the plots of the Firm, M/s. C. V. Parekh and Co., for more than a week, that the two respondents were partners of the Firm, that the sale had been negotiated by Vallabhadas Thacker even prior to the time when the delivery of the goods was taken by Kamdar. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Commodities Act under which, if the person contravening an order made under Section 3 (which covers an order under the Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956) is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the Company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. It was urged that the two respondents were in charge of, and were responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company and, consequently, they must be held responsible for the sale and for thus contravening the provisions of Clause 5 of the Iron and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
