9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the Company which ran the chit fund is not made a party to these proceedings and unless, the Company is a party, the petition would not be maintainable. 7. The issue with regard to whether the proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner alone who is an employee of the Company and not the Company, is no longer res integra, as the issue stands covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANEETA HADA V. GODFATHER TRAVELS AND TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED (2012) 5 SCC 661 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- "39. The word "deemed" used in Section 141 of the Act applies to the company and the persons responsible for the acts of the company. It crystallizes the corporate criminal liability and vicar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has held as follows: "8. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions of the learned senior counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 9. In the light of the submissions of the parties, the point that arises for consideration of this court is; Whether the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaints filed by the Labour Department against the petitioner as anindividual without making the company, in which he is a member on Board, are maintainable? 10. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of ANEETA HADA (supra) while considering a case arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has held as follows: "Applying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances, respectfully following the Authority in the case of ANEETA HADA (supra), in my view, the complaints filed by the Senior Labour Inspector qua an individual without the Corporate entity being made as a member, were not maintainable. In the circumstances, these petitions merit consideration and are accordingly allowed." In the light of the judgments as noticed hereinabove, the complaint itself was not maintainable without the corporate entity being made as a party but having brought only the Board of Directors or the officers of the Company as accused. 9. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, as followed by this Court (supra), both the petitions deserve to be allowed. For the aforesaid reasons, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
