Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (10) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uary 2, 1993, annexure P-1 (in both the cases) filed by the respondents against them under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act ), and also for the quashing of the summoning orders, annexure P-2. The allegations made in the complaints filed by the respondents were that Apollo Processors Private Ltd., Old Jail Road, Amritsar, drew cheques Nos. 076548 and 076549, dated December 1, 1992, each for a sum of ₹ 1 lakh payable to the complainant-firm, Ashwani Kumar Satish Kumar. These cheques were duly signed by its director, namely, Jatinder Podar, and were drawn on Vijay Bank, Amritsar. The cheques were presented to Vijay Bank by the complainant firm for receiving the payment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... trol over the everyday affairs of the firm. Petitioner No. 2, Rajan Podar, son of Jatinder Podar, was only 21 years old and was a student seeking admission in post-graduate course and was not concerned with the business of the concern. They had not issued the cheques. It was further alleged that statutory notice which was required to be issued within fifteen days of the dishonouring of the cheque was not issued within the said period nor the complaints were filed within the statutory period of thirty days from the date cause of action arose to the complainants. 4. In the reply filed by the complainant-respondents the allegations made in the petition were denied and it was asserted that the petitioners were directors of the company and we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... period of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioners considering this averment in the petition did not address any argument assailing the complaint and summoning order on this ground. 7. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioners was that both Mrs. Manju Podar and Mr. Rajan Podar were not in charge of the conduct of the business of the company and they were implicated with the sole intention of settling scores with Jatinder Podar. Mrs. Manju Podar was a housewife and had no control over the everyday affairs of the firm and Mr. Rajan Podar who was a young boy and was a student, had no say in the everyday business of the firm. It was further submitted that there was no allegation in the complaint against the petitione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , or is attributed to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) 'company' means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals ; and (b) 'director', in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 8. A perusal of Sub-section (1) referred to above leaves no doubt that if the person committing an offence is a company then every person who was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion (2) provides that besides the persons mentioned in Sub-section (1) where any offence committed by a company is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company then the said director, manager, secretary or officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence. It would mean that even if such director, manager, secretary, etc., was not in charge of and was not responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, he will still be liable if the offence was committed with his consent, connivance or due to his negligence. No such averments are required to be made in the complaint against t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates