Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 925 - DELHI HIGH COURTDishonour of cheques - Summon for offences punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act - grounds taken by the petitioners seeking quashing of the complaint that neither at the time of the settlement nor at the time of issuance of the cheques nor at the time when the cheque in question was dishonoured, the petitioners were the directors of the company much less responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company Held that:- It is not disputed that the petitioners have been summoned only for offences punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The factum that the two petitioners ceased to be the Directors of the company with effect from 7th August, 2013 and 15th March, 2013 respectively has not been denied. Thus, at the time when the cheque in question was dishonoured, the petitioners were not the Directors of the company and were not even liable when the cause of action arose i.e. non-payment within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice. Moreover, the petitioners have placed on record impeccable evidence in the form of copy of Form-32 filed before the Registrar of Companies showing their resignation from the dates as noted above. The petitioners have not been summoned for offences under Section 420/120B IPC or dishonour of the earlier cheque. Hence for dishonour of the cheque in question vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the petitioners. Petitions and applications are disposed of quashing the order to the extent it summons the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 NI Act.
|