Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Tamil Nadu News Print & Papers Ltd. Versus D. Karunakar & Others

2015 (8) TMI 889 - SUPREME COURT

Dishonor of Cheque - Liability of Director - Cheque in name of Accused company-1 was issued to Appellant which was not honoured and in spite of statutory notice issued, no amount in respect of said cheque was paid Respondents filed petitions for quashing said complaint, which was allowed Held that:- admitted position that simply because someone was Director in company, he cannot be held responsible in respect of cheque issued on behalf of company, but if concerned Director was in-charge of a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d Decide in favour of Appellant. - Criminal Appeal No.(s). 1846-1847 of 2008 - Dated:- 6-8-2015 - Anil R. Dave And Amitava Roy,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. K. K. Mani, Adv., Ms. T. Archana, Adv. For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Anil R. Dave, J. 1. In these appeals, the order dated 12th April, 2007, passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P.Nos. 1222 & 4098 of 2007 and Crl. M.P. No. 1 of 2007, has been challenged. 2. By virtue of the impugned order, the High Court has al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

company of which Accused Nos. 2 to 9 were the Directors. Though, all the accused had not filed quashing petitions, the High Court has quashed the proceedings in respect of all the accused, other than Accused No. 1, which is the company and Accused No. 2, who was the Managing Director of the company, who had issued the cheque. A cheuqe for ₹ 57,68,524/- (Fifty Seven Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Four) had been issued on behalf of Accused No. 1 company by Accused No. 2, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

limited extent, as stated hereinabove. 5. The present appellant, in whose favour the cheque had been issued by Accused No. 2, on behalf of Accused no.1 company, has been aggrieved by the order whereby the proceedings have been quashed in part by the High Court and therefore, the present appeals have been filed by the complainant. 6. Though served, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. It appears from the record that notice issued to Accused no.1 company was refused and whereabouts of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erson committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the complaint, an averment has been made to the effect that all the accused were Directors and incharge of day-to-day business of Accused No. 1 - company and therefore, they are liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. 9. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court is not right when it has observed in paragraph 7 of the impugned order that "the complainant has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nother reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89. Paragraph 19(a) of the Judgment reads as under :- "19(a) It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint........" 11. The learned counsel has also submitted that, in fact, an averment had been made in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the appellant. 13. Upon perusal of the complaint, we find that an averment has been made to the effect that Accused Nos. 3 to 10 were, in fact, in-charge of the day-to-day business of Accused No. 1 - company. 14. It is an admitted position that simply because someone is a Director in a company, he cannot be held responsible in respect of a cheque issued on behalf of the company, but if the concerned Director is in-charge of and is responsible to the company for its conduct of business, he can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version