TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and another [ 2007 (2) TMI 311 - SUPREME COURT] .], it has been held that a person, who is arrayed as an accused invoking Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act amounts to vigorous liability, which cannot be automatic. There is no specific averments in the complaint to show that the petitioner was in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Further, the two requirements in Section 141 of the Act has to be read conjointly and not disjointly. Liability of directors to be determined on the date on which they resigned. In the present case the petitioner resigned in the year 2012. Dishonored cheque issued in the year, 2015 - The dismissal of the quash petitions filed by A2, A4 and A5 would no way affect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further during the course of business, the first accused company availed various financial credit facilities from the complainant Bank including opening of irrevocable Letters of Credit Facility on 26.12.2014, for purchase of Indonesian Coal (NON Coking Coal) from M/s.National Coal Private Limited. The respondent/complainant acceded to the request of the accused-company for opening Inland Letter of Credit in favour of the accused company for purchase of coal from the said M/s.National Coal Private Limited for a sum of Rs.5,03,21,250/-. As per the terms of the Letter of Credit Facility, once the bill is raised for purchase of coal, if the purchaser fails to pay the amount within 90 days of issuance of Letter of Credit, then the bill has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e co-accused A2/Dinesh Chand Surana and A4/G.R.Surana have filed quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24740 of 2018. This Court, by order dated 24.10.2018, closed the same, finding that the petitioners therein had raised a ground that the cheque was given only as a security which was disputed by the respondent and further G.R.Surana/A4 had raised a ground that he resigned from the first accused company on 29.04.2015. The cheque in dispute was issued on 26.03.2015, which is before the date of resignation of A4, who is the Managing Director and authorised signatory to the cheque had not contested this petition. Thereafter recording the same, the petition has been closed. With regard to the quash petition filed by Vijayraj Surana/A5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has been arrayed as an accused primarily under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the absence any averments, the petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused. Hence, he prayed for quashing of this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant submitted that the respondent is a Bank, who extended Financial Credit Facility to M/s.Surana Power Limited, in which, the petitioner is a Director along with other accused. He further submitted that the Letter of Credit Facility was issued on 26.12.2014 for the purchase of Indonesian Coal (NON Coking Coal) to a value of Rs.5,03,21,250/-. Within 90 days, the Letter of Credit to be honoured even if the borrower failed to credit the amount. In view of the same, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside the quashing order passed by this Court finding that the issues are factual in nature, which is neither admitted by the complainant nor apparent on the face of the record. Such type of disputed factual defences would have been left to be appreciated by the trial Court. Since petitioner's resignation is disputed, this quash petition has to be dismissed and the petitioner has to face trial. 5. Considering the submissions and on a perusal of the materials it is seen that it is an admitted case of the petitioner that Letter of Credit Facility was availed on 26.12.2014. The impugned cheque issued in discharge of liability dated 16.06.2015. Further, the print out taken from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, it is seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heque 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 of the business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement 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 liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
