Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 889 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (8) TMI 889 - SUPREME COURT - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f High Court set aside and Appeals allowed 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Accused No.1, a 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 o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which the High Court has allowed to the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h reads as under :- "141(1) If the person 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot; (Emphasis supplied) 8. It has been submitted 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 impu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

armaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court and the complaint filed on behalf 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 co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version