TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. (hereinafter called as 'the company' for short) was incorporated as a company, petitioner was one of the founder Director. However, that was 24 years ago and the petitioner who is a lady was 55 years of age. Today she is 79-80 years of age. The petitioner had resigned from the Directorship of the said company on 20.8.1994. Form No. 32 to this effect was also submitted with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). At the time of launch of the said company the petitioner along with her family members was residing in a rented accommodation situated at A-8, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. She had vacated this house in the year 1993 after petitioner had purchased residential house which is F-23, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. 3. It appears that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly she was not the Director at the relevant time, by no stretch she could be treated as the person in-charge of the affairs of the company. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Sunil Dilip Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2002 Bom 194, holding that a Director ceases to be so as soon as resignation is accepted by the Board of Directors and he is not required to fill Form 32 and issue notice to the ROC as that is the responsibility of the company. It is also held in this case that any liability incurred by the company after the retirement of the Director is not the responsibility of the retiree Director and he would be liable only for unpaid amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontained are sufficient to attract culpability is a matter for adjudication at the trial. 6. The Court, therefore, held that whether or not the evidence to be led would establish the accusations is a matter for trial. No doubt when disputed questions are raised in the petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. those are not to be decided in these proceedings and the appropriate course is to adjudicate upon such disputed questions at the trial. However, on the other hand, here there are no disputed facts and case is to be decided on the basis of admitted position. 7. In S.V. Muzumdar Ors. v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. Anr. (supra) the ground on which the petitioner wanted quashing of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negoti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tul Kohli Anr. v. State of Punjab Anr. (supra) decided by Punjab Haryana High Court would also be clearly distinguishable and has no application. That was a case where cheque was bounced on 25.6.2003 and the Director took plea that she resigned w.e.f. 18.5.2003 and in support Board Resolution was produced. Form-32 was also produced but it was filed with the ROC on 16.7.2003 i.e. much after bouncing of the cheque. Thus Form 32 could not come to the aid of the petitioner in the said case and as far as Board Resolution was concerned, the Court rightly observed that it was a disputed question of fact which could not be gone into in proceedings under Section 482 of the Crl. P.C. 10. Likewise in K. Umadevi v. V. Manikandan (supra) certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
