9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTD. VERSUS NEETA BHALLA [ 2005 (9) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that with a view to make a Director of a Company vicariously liable for the acts of the Company, it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to make specific allegations as are required in law. The well settled principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as in this case also there is only a bald and vague allegations made against the Petitioner and such bald and vague allegations itself is not sufficient without making any specific averment as to as to how and in what manner the Petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company - petition allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds insufficient and Account freezed by Court Order'. 5. According to the complainant, A1 to A4 are liable to pay the cheque amounts. Since the accused failed to honour the said cheque in favour of the complainant, the complainant had issued a stautory notice dated 24.02.2005 to the accused by Registered Post. Notice sent to A1 to A4 was returned with the endorsements "refused" and the registered post sent to A4 to A9 were returned to the sender with the endorsements "Door Locked, "Door intimation given", "Addressee gone to long tour, "Left without instruction" and "office not functioning" respectively. According to the complainant, the accused were evading to receive the notice and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld point out that there is no allegation that the Petitioner was the Managing Director or he was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company nor with his connivance the cheque was issued. He would contend that in the absence of any such averment in the complaint, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is illegal. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he has withdrawn his appearance. It is reported that the deposit was made by the complainant long back and hence, the resignation tendered by the Petitioner will not in any way affect the cause of action and he would be vicariously liable since the deposits were made while he was functioning as the Director in the said Company. He would further con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Company during the relevant period when the cheque was issued. The Honourable Supreme Court even in the earlier decision rendered in the case of SMS Pharmaceutical Limited Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another [2006-1-LW-Crl-1=2005-8-SCC-89) has held as under:- "with a view to make a Director of a Company vicariously liable for the acts of the Company, it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to make specific allegations as are required in law." 13. In another decision rendered in the case of N.K.Wahi Vs. Shekahr Singh and others (2007-2-SC-811), the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under: "To launch a prosecution therefore, against the alleged Directors must be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a catena of decisions cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as in this case also there is only a bald and vague allegations made against the Petitioner and such bald and vague allegations itself is not sufficient without making any specific averment as to as to how and in what manner the Petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. That too when he has resigned from the Directorship as early as on 5.6.2004 i.e. three to four months prior to the issuance of the cheques dated 24.08.2004 & 28.09.2004, respectively, it cannot be said that he is vicariously liable. 16. In view of the said reasons and in the light of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the cogniza ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
