TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been disposed of at the hearing held on 8.8.2007 was required to be reserved for judgment for the reason learned counsel for the respondent failed to search the relevant case law. A matter which is clearly covered in favour of the respondent viz-a-viz petitioner no.2 could have been disposed of on relevant judgment been cited. 2. It is expected from members of the bar to research and cite late ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused whose liability was vicarious could not be prosecuted. 5. The issue is no longer res integra. In the decision reported as 2000 (1) SCC 1 Anil Handi Vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd. it was held that a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act 1938 was maintainable if only Director of the Company was impleaded as an accused. It was held that a company need not be a co-accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s within limitation. 8. I may note that as per the complaint second petitioner is described as the Managing Director of accused no.1 i.e. petitioner no.1 and there are specific allegations that he is incharge and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused no.1 company. 9. Petition accordingly stands disposed of quashing the summoning order but viz-a-viz petitioner no.1 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
