9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being numbered as Criminal Case No. 4644/2000 4645/2000 came to be filed before the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Jamnagar against the applicant by respondent no. 1 for the alleged offences punishable u/s. 211 and Section 293(1)(a) r/w. Section 629-A of the Companies Act, 1956 respectively. On the said complaints, the learned J.M.F.C., Jamnagar issued process to the applicant. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Court by way of these applications. 3.0 Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the name of the applicant is not at all reflected in the impugned complaints in order to connect him with the alleged offence. He has submitted that no specific allegations have been made in the entire complaint to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be said to be satisfied. (b) The answer to the question posed in sub-para (b) has to be in the negative. Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a Company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 is that 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. 4.0 Learned Advocate for the applicant has next relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sabitha Ramamu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only those persons who are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the Company, at the time of the commission of the offence, shall be liable for criminal action. Learned Counsel for the respondents are not in a position to show from the complaints that the applicant was in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the management of the Company. 8.0 In the case on hand since it is not borne out from the complaint that the applicant was in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company, he could not be held criminally liable. The liability arises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time when the offence was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
