Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (2) TMI 2039

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... complaint against such accused that he/she was incharge or responsible for the business affairs of the firm/company or that offence was committed with his consent, connivance or negligence. In this case, specific averments have been made against the petitioners which meet the statutory requirement of Section 141 of the N.I. Act. The pleas taken by the petitioner that they were neither incharge of the firm nor responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the firm, are subject matter of trial. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed with costs of ₹ 25,000/- to be paid by each of the petitioners to the complainant. Costs be recovered by the trial court and made over to the complainant. The applications are disposed of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no.1. Accordingly, petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Act for the offence allegedly committed by the firm under Section 138 of the Act. Statutory requirements, as envisaged in Section 141 of the Act, have not been complied with thus, learned Metropolitan Magistrate ought not have summoned the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on Katta Sujatha (Smt) vs. Fertilizers Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Anr. (2002) 7 SCC 655, S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89, N.K. Wahi vs. Shekhar Singh Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 481, Saroj Kumar Poddar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2007) 3 SCC 693 and Ramrajsingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2009) 6 SCC 729. Per contra, learn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: [Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upra), Supreme Court has summarised the position emerging from Section 141 of the Act in the following manner:- (i) If the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint Managing Director, it is not necessary to make an averment in the complaint that he is in charge of, and is responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. It is sufficient if an averment is made that the accused was the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director at the relevant time. This is because the prefix Managing to the word Director makes it clear that they were in charge of and are responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. (ii) In the case of a director or an officer of the company who signed t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... akes it clear that specific averments have been made against the petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused nos. 3 and 4. In para 2 of the complaint, it has been specifically averred that accused no.1 is a partnership firm and accused nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the said firm and accused no. 4 is authorised signatory of the firm and were responsible for the day to day activities of the said firm. In para 3 of the complaint also, it has been stated that the accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 had been personally dealing with the complainant on behalf of the accused no.1. These averments are specific and meets the requirements as contained in Section 141 of the Act. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in the co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates