TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on 1.4.2013 itself, and required information was sent on Form 32 [Annexure P/6] to the Registrar, the petitioner ceased to be Director of Company on 1.4.2013. More so, she is not the signatory to the cheque. The alleged cheque is dated 13.04.2013 and was returned dishonoured on 10.7.2013. Thus, on the date of issuance of cheque, the petitioner was not the Director PARKASH SOM 2015.09.24 15:45 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent petitioner was summoned to face trial on the basis of summoning order dated 29.08.2013 [Annexure P/2]. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that cheque for a sum of ₹ 9,05,817/- was issued on 13.4.2013 and was returned as dishonoured on 10.7.2013. Though, she was earlier member of Board of Directors of M/s Swati Cast Forge Private Limited [for short, the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley etc., 2011(3) SCC 351, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that if a cheque issued by a company and plea taken that one of the Directors had resigned before the date of issuance of cheque and his resignation was duly accepted and notified, such person cannot be made accountable and the liability cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuance of cheque, the petitioner was not the Director PARKASH SOM 2015.09.24 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document of the Company. More so, she was not the signatory to the cheque in question. Hence, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurmala Sales Private Ltd. Vs. Anu Mehta and others; Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley etc. and National Small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
