TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laint cannot be quashed merely on the ground that no particulars are given in the complaint about his role if the basic averment was sufficient to make out a case in the complaint. There are averments that both the Directors had acted on behalf of the accused No.1 for the manufacture and supply by the complainant/respondent of 12,000 STBs Units at a particular price. The complainant has averred that it had entered into an MoU on 14th June, 2018 and had executed to Tripartite Agreement dated 18th September, 2018 and 2nd December, 2018 with the accused No.1 in this regard, whereafter the post dated cheques drawn in favour of the complainant were issued. The complaint further sets out how when the accused No.1 company failed to make timely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohanty, Advocate. Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek Sarin, Ms. Astha Sehgal, Ms. Sakshi Shreya Mr. Satish C. Kaushik, Advocates for R-1 with AR-Anshul Trivedi. J U D G M E N T 1. The petitions are disposed of through this common order as they are between the same parties and in respect of connected complaint cases filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(for short N.I. Act ) for dishonor of cheques issued in respect of the same transaction. 2. The respondents had filed the complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act against Pantel Technologies Pvt. Limited and its directors, the present petitioners Javahar Lal and Vivek Prakash. The learned Trial Court af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs being the petitioner and the accused No.3 in the complaint cases. Mr. Vivek Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that more importantly the liability in respect of which the cheques in question have been issued arose out of the Tripartite Agreements which were signed by the petitioner. Therefore, the issuance of post-dated cheques in favour of the respondents for a sum of Rs. 23,57,43,675/- could not have been without the active consent of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the DIR-12 reflects that the petitioner was a director of the accused company. Therefore, he cannot claim to have had no role to play. The judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Radha Krishna vs. Dasari Deepthi (2019) 15 SCC 550 and of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be in-charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Therefore, by virtue of the office they held as Managing Director or Joint Managing Director these persons would be covered under Section 141. So would the signatory of a cheque which stood dishonoured, as he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered Sub Section 141 (2) of the N.I. Act. 6. Since Section 141 of the N.I. Act raises a legal fiction creating vicarious liability, strict compliance with statutory requirements was called for. A joint liability to pay a debt will not be sufficient to make a person vicariously liable under Section 148 N.I. Act as observed in Alka Khandu Avhad vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited is accused No.1, the petitioner Javahar Lal is accused No.2 and Vivek Prakash is accused No.3, both of whom have been described as Directors. In Para No.2 of the complaints, it is mentioned that accused No.2 and 3, that is, the petitioner and other Director had approached the complaint for the manufacture and supply of 12,000 STBs Units @12.75 per unit. This is stated to have been done for and on behalf of the accused No.1 company. The words further used, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the complaints merely state that the accused No.2 and 3 are the Directors of the accused No.1/company and responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused No.1/company. 10. On that basis, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. The dishonour of the cheques was brought to the notice of accused No.2 and 3 but no payments were made by any of the accused. Then the complaints were filed. 12. It would be useful to turn to the documents at this juncture. This Court had permitted the respondent to place on record the DIR-12. A perusal of this document would show that the petitioner was appointed the Additional Director of the accused company on 3rd April, 2019. This would mean that the petitioner was indeed the Director of the company at the time when the offence was committed. The petitioner has not placed on record any document of sterling quality to show that he was either not a Director of the accused company or had been in a non-executive role. 13. But again, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
