9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the firm on the allegations that the respondent no.1 had lend his JCB Machine on monthly fare of Rs.90,000/-. Thereafter, on 8-10-2010, the respondent no.2 informed the respondent no.1 in writing that now the JCB Machine is no more required and on 20-11-2010, the respondent no. 2 gave a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of part payment of the outstanding fare. The said cheque was presented in the bank which was returned back on the ground of "insufficient funds". Thus, it was alleged that the respondent no.2 is responsible as he is the signatory of the cheque, whereas the firm along with its partners is liable as provided under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The relevant allegations in the complaint reads as under : Except th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. Conversely, a person not holding any office or designation in a company may be liable if he satisfies the main requirement of being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of a company at the relevant time. Liability depends on the role one plays in the affairs of a company and not on designation or status. If being a Director or Manager or Secretary was enough to cast criminal liability, the section would have said so. Instead of "every person" the section would have said "every Director, Manager or Secretary in a company is li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of holding office or position in a company and, therefore, in order to bring a case within Section 141 of the Act, the complaint must disclose the necessary facts which makes a person liable. After considering various judgments on this issue, the Supreme Court further observed that an allegation in the complaint to the effect that the respondents being the Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director and wholetime Director were and are the persons responsible and in charge of day-to-day business of Accused 1 viz. when the offence was committed is sufficient for prosecution of the respondents. However, in the present case, the allegation is that the firm along with its partners is responsible. Here there is no allegation that the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
