9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king printing, manufacturing and supply of cigarette packets of the make "Mono American Legend" and "Multi American Legend" the complainant manufactured, printed and supplied the cartons/cigarette packets and raised five invoices for a sum total of Rs. 12,94,685/-. Since earlier part/advance payment of Rs. 4,83,516/- had been received by the complainant a net sum of Rs. 8,11,169/- was still due and payable by Webtech. In part discharge of liability, the accused issued cheque bearing No.492444 dated 23rd July, 2015 for a sum of Rs. 7,75,659/- drawn on Bank of India, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Branch. When presented the cheque was returned with the cheque return advice dated 13th August, 2015 stating "Exceeds Arrangement". Neutech sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng failed to do so the complaint qua the petitioners is not maintainable. 6. Though in the complaint it is stated that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, that is, Aditya Tangri and Saurabh Tangri were no more the Directors, however, it is not clarified as to when the offence was committed, whether they were Directors or not and when they ceased to be the Directors. The Supreme Court in National Small Industries (Supra) laid down the principles regarding necessary averments in the complaint and how and in what manner the accused in a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 NI Act can be held guilty of consent and connivance or negligence. It was held: "25. From the above discussion, the following principles emerge: (i) The prim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rment in complaint. (vii) The person sought to be made liable should be in- charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a Director in such cases." 7. It is evident that Supreme Court reiterated that vicarious criminal liability on the Directors could only be fastened if they were in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. As noted above in the complaint filed, the averments that the three petitioners herein were the Director, In-charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs and conduct of the business of Webtech has clearly been made. 8. Considering the fact that the av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
