TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner had resigned three months prior to the date of the cheque. Further, the petitioner's resignation being registered with the ROC has not been conclusively proved. In view of the same, the petitioner's contention that he was not the Director of the company during the relevant period cannot be accepted. From the complaint, it is seen that the cheque has been issued by the 1st accused company and the cheque has been signed by A2 as a Director and Authorised Signatory. Admittedly, the petitioner had not signed the cheque and from the complaint, it is seen that except for a bald averment, there is no specific averment to show that at the time of the offence committed, the petitioner was in charge and responsible for the conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cotton wastes from complainant during the year 2012 and 2013 and the complainant raised invoices for the same. Accused No.1 were making payments to the complainant at regular intervals mostly on bill to bill basis. But all of a sudden, in the year 2013 Accused No.1 stopped the purchase of cotton waste from the complainant and further stopped making payments. As per the bills, the amount due to the complainant is Rs.4,87,883/~. After several requests made, accused 2 to 4 issued three cheques towards part payment and assured to make remaining payment after realization of these cheques. The cheques were signed by the 2nd accused with the knowledge of the Accused 3 and 4. The details of the cheques are given as follows:~ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the 2nd accused and the 4th accused/the petitioner herein, who is the son of the 2nd accused. The petitioner was made as a Director in the 1st accused company, since he happened to be the son of the 2nd accused Managing Director, the 2nd accused and 3rd accused were his parents. Other than this, the petitioner had no role in the business for day~to~day affairs of the 1st accused company. 6. He further submitted that the petitioner was engaged in other businesses and hence, due to pre~occupation with his other activities, he had sent a letter dated 25.03.2015 resigning the post of Director of the 1st accused company. The 1st accused company held a Board meeting on 07.04.2015 and accepted the resignation of the petitioner. Thereafter, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cheque dated 08.07.2015 and with a illegal motive had resigned from the company on 07.04.2015. The other Directors are none other than his parents who had connived with this petitioner. Further the petitioner-s resignation has become a questionable one and the cheque issued for liability is not disputed, it was issued, when the petitioner was the Director of the 1st accused company. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the points raised by the petitioner are to be decided only during trial. The respondent had followed all the mandatory provisions and filed the complaint. 9. The basic averment that the petitioner was a Director and in charge and responsible for the conduct of the 1st accused company at the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rement to attract Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Without this averment made in the complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. 12. From the complaint, it is seen that there is no such averment to rope in the petitioner. The Director would not automatically become vigorously liable. Merely being the Director of the company could not make such person liabile under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court in the case of SMS pharmaceuticals and K.K.Ahuja , had given such dictum. 13. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner/A4 in S.T.C.No.334 of 2015. Further STC.No.324 of 2015 has been kept pending before the trial Court du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
