TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants which alleged to have been obtained from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and unnecessary dragged the appellants in litigation who were not directly charged or responsible for the company for the conduct of business. The requirement of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is against the persons responsible for the conduct or business of the company at the relevant time. In absence of such allegation against the appellants, the complainant misused the mandate of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2770/2013 with SLP(Crl) No. 2962/2013 And Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2014, 1693 of 2014 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EI Industrial Systems Ltd., Bhopal, appellant no. 2 - Vijay Kumar Khanna was appointed on 29th January, 2004 as Additional Director in the category of Independent Non-executive Director by the Board of Directors of M/s GEI Industrial Systems Ltd. The appellant no. 3- Sudershan Synghal was appointed on 20 th September, 2005 as nominee Director of Director of M/s GEI Industrial Systems Ltd. Who represented the Madhya Pradesh State Government (Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation) in the category of Independent Non-Executive Director of M/s GEI Industrial Systems Ltd. Though they were not directly involved nor dealt with the matter of the company, they were impleaded as accused in the petition under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions of the parties as also the precedents operating in the field, the questions were answered by the larger bench in the following terms: 19. In view of the above discussion, our answers to the questions posed in the reference are as under: (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. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (b) The answer to the question posed in sub-para (b) has to be in the ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of his business. The Court below and the High Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the complainant in the mechanical way cited the names of the appellants which alleged to have been obtained from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and unnecessary dragged the appellants in litigation who were not directly charged or responsible for the company for the conduct of business. The requirement of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is against the persons responsible for the conduct or business of the company at the relevant time. In absence of such allegation against the appellants, we hold that the complainant misused the mandate of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. For the reasons aforesaid, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
