9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act stands recorded in the books as per the relevant rules and statutory provisions, can be held liable for certain negotiable instruments, failing realization, is the sole short and common question that this Court must consider in these appeals arising out of the judgment and order dated 6th April, 2022 in CRLOP No.34923 of 2019; and 8th April, 2022 in CRLOP No.34248 of 2019. 3. A brief conspectus of facts for adjudication of the present lis is:- (a) The appellants in both the appeals were Directors in the Respondent- Company and had resigned from such Directorship on 9th December,2013 Annexure P-1, Page 45 of Paperbook and 12th March, 2014 Annexure P-1, Page 43 of Paperbook respectively; (b) Form 32 in accordance with Sections 303(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or for non-realisation of a cheque is no longer res integra. Before adverting to the judicial position, we must also take note of the statutory provision - Section 141 of the N.I. Act, which states that every person who at the time of the offence was responsible for the affairs/conduct of the business of the company, shall be held liable and proceeded against under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, with exception thereto being that such an act, if done without his knowledge or after him having taken all necessary precautions, would not be held liable. However, if it is proved that any act of a company is proved to have been done with the connivance or consent or may be attributable to (i) a director; (ii) a manager; (iii) a secretary; or (iv) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC, in cases involving negotiable instruments that interference would not be called for, in the absence of "some unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of process of Court." This principle as held in S.M.S Pharmaceuticals (supra) was followed in Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya and Anr. v. Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 915. 8. We find the High Court, in the impugned order to have elaborately discussed the principles of law in reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
