9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 2028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re independent non-executive Directors. In other two reports, it was held that before making a Director liable under Section 141 averments have to be made to show that he was incharge of or was responsible to the accused company for conduct of its business. In the present case, specific averments have been made in the complaint which cannot be said to be general one line statement in one para to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pesh Kr. Tyagi, Adv. For the Respondents : Ms. Shallu Bhati, Adv. ORDER Respondent no.1 (complainant) has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(the Act, for short) against the respondent no.2 (accused no.1) before the trial court, wherein petitioner, being Director of respondent no.2, has been impleaded as accused no.3; Another Director Shri Raj Kumar Ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence stage and find that there are specific averments made therein, that petitioner was responsible for the running of the company. The averments made in the complaint have to be taken on its face value at this stage. In para 5 of the complaint, it is alleged that petitioner and respondent no.3 were Directors and Authorised Signatories of respondent no. 2. They were solely responsible for the day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the complaint), on behalf of respondent no.2. In para 15 of the complaint also similar statements have been made. As per the petitioner, he was not responsible for the day to day affairs of the Company (respondent no.2) and it is the respondent no. 3 who had signed the cheque as Incharge of the Company. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Sudeep Jain Vs. M/s. ECE Industries Ltd. 2013 SCC O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the day to day affairs of the company. The averments made in the complaint which have been reproduced hereinabove, prima facie, exhibit that petitioner was involved in the affairs of the company and had acted in concert with respondent no.3 in respect of the transaction alleged in the complaint. The disputed questions of fact are a matter of trial and cannot be decided in the present petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
