Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 950 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - Vicarious liability of directors - whether the company was being only run by the Accused No.2 i.e. son of the petitioner herein or whether the Petitioner herein is also involved in the affairs of the company? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, there are only two directors of the company. As laid down by the Apex Court, specific averments have been made that accused, who are the Directors of the company and are responsible for the day-to-day affairs and acts of the company and had been conducting the same by being present and actively controlling all the operations on site at the office on a day-to-day basis from the start of the operation of the channel. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he is a non-executive director. The petitioner is a full-time director. The complaint read as a whole indicates that at the time of cheques being issued by the company and returned by the bank, the son of the petitioner and the petitioner were the only directors of the company and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order dated 03.02.2021 issuing summons to the petitioner herein - Supreme Court in ASHUTOSH ASHOK PARASRAMPURIYA & ANR. VERSUS M/S. GHARRKUL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. [2021 (10) TMI 431 - SUPREME COURT], squarely covers the present case. It is for the petitioner to establish in trial that he was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company owing to his age and the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that he is 80 years of age and is unable to manage the affairs of the company cannot be accepted at this stage and the complaint cannot be quashed on that basis. The observations made by this Court is limited to the issue as to whether the complaint should be quashed or not because of the fact that the complaint does not state the exact role of the petitioner in the conduct of the business of the company - Petition dismissed.
|