TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company in its day-to-day affairs. In view of that, we do not find that the complaint which has been lodged is in consonance with the requirements made under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the law laid down by this court in in National Small Industries Corporation Limited vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another, [20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 408/1 of 2012 on the ground that the appellant is a mere Director of accused Company, who cannot be prosecuted as no vicarious liability can be fastened with the appellant. It is submitted that the High Court passed the said order, without referring to the Agreement dated 13.08.2010 annexed to the petition disclosing that the affairs of the Company was managed by one Mr. Anil D. Kaneria, respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the provision. Only those persons who were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. It follows from the fact that if a Director of a Company who was not in-charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, will not be liable for a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused company for the conduct of its business. This is in consonance with strict interpretation of penal statutes, especially, where such statutes create vicarious liability. We find that in the complaint, the appellant has not made a specific statement that the appellant as a Director and arrayed as an accused was in-charge and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
