9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. 3. This Tribunal has received a letter dated 24-7-2008 from Haresh Mehta Co. stating that the appellant has already paid the penalty amount of Rs.1,000 and requesting this Tribunal to decide the appeal on merit on the grounds stated in the Memo of Appeal. In other words, the appellant does not want to be present or being represented for personal hearing. Accordingly, the appeal papers have been taken up for consideration. 4. Heard Shri AC. Singh, DLA for the respondent and perused the appeal record. The main crux of the contention of the appellant is that there is no iota of evidence that the appellant was in charge of export business of the noticee company M/s Seven Seas Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under :- To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a person can be subject to criminal process. A liability under section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a company, the principal accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the act contains the requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That respondent falls within parameters of section 141 has to be spelled out The position of a Managing Director or a joint managi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport proceeds of the said noticee company. In absence of any such averments, the appellant cannot be absolved from the responsibility of their liability under section 68 of FER Act, 1973. As the matter is quite serious, proper disclosures regarding the internal management of the noticee company appears necessary which is not available. It is well settled that Section 291 of Companies Act provides responsibility on the Board of Directors to carry out management of the company. The said individual appellant, therefore, cannot get benefit of his own wrong for not disclosing the internal arrangement as to the management of the appellant company which is difficult for the respondent to ascertain accurately. Further, it is well established that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
