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

2013 (7) TMI 1227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eing case No. C/2012 of 1997 under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s. Western Paques India Limited, one Nandan Gadgil being chairman and managing director of said company and six others including the present petitioner D.M. Kulkarni as directors and/or officers of said company. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he resigned from the post of the directorship of M/s. Western Paques India Limited with effect from 8th April, 1996 and that the company also sent an information to that effect to the registrar of companies on 7th of May, 1996 through Form-32. According to the petitioner the cheque was alleged to be drawn on 26th of June, 1997 being dishonoured on 2nd of April, 1997. As either on the date of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng director, manager and secretary containing the particulars with respect to each of them as set out in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 303 of the Companies Act, 1956. Sub-section (2) of Section 303 mandates every company to send to the Registrar a return in duplicate containing the particulars specified in the register. Any change among its directors, managing directors, managers or secretaries specifying the date of change is also required to be furnished to the Registrar of Companies in the prescribed form within 30 days of such change. There is, thus, statutory requirement of informing the Registrar of Companies about change among directors of the company. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, it must be held tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... referred case laws reported in AIR 2012 SC page 31 (Mrs. Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council and Anr.), 2012 Cr LJ page 104 (Shankar Menon v. State of W. B.) and (2012) 3 C Cr LR (Cal) page 71 (Anu Mehta v. Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd.). In all those cases it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this High Court that when averments in complaint made against the petitioner director were not specific as to his role in the matter of issuance of alleged cheque by accused company, the accused director cannot be roped with the vicarious liability of commission of offence for dishonour of cheque issued by the accused No. 1 company under Section 141 of the N.T. Act. Accordingly, Mr. Bhattacharyya prays for quashing of the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accused director of an accused company to pray for quashing of the criminal case against him under Section 141, N.I. Act on the ground of his resignation from the accused company before issuance of cheque. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that on that ground the plea of resignation was not taken in the Court below at any earlier point of view. In this connection he further submits that there is no time limit for approaching this Court for quashing of criminal proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention he refers a case law reported in 1998 Cr.L.J. 2218 (Nuswan Burjor Madan and another v. Biswanath Das and another) wherein it was held that the Court should not stick to a particular time limit but to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the accused No. 1 company was with effect from 8th April, 1996 and that said information was given through Form-32 by the competent person on 7th May, 1996. 8. Admittedly, there are catena of decisions, some of which have already been referred by Mr. Bhattacharyya, to show that mere averments in complaint that the petitioner director was responsible for day to day affairs of the accused company without specifying his roles in the matter of day to day affairs or in the matter of issuance of alleged cheques by accused company cannot rope him with the vicarious liability of dishonour of cheque under Section 141, N.I. Act. In the case in hand also there is no averment to describe the specific role played by the petitioner director in the matte .....

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