Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Vijay Kumar Khanna vs Unknown on 6 June, 2016
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
86. 06.06.2016 C.R.R. 1708 of 2016 Aloke Ct. No.28 In the matter of : Vijay Kumar Khanna Mr. A. Chatterjee Mr. S. Banerjee ... for the petitioner Proceeding in Complaint Case No. C/876/13 pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been assailed so far as the petitioner is concerned.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a full time Director of the company and was not the in-charge of the company and responsible to for running of its day-to-day business. I, however, find that there is averment at paragraph 2 of the petition that the petitioner is a Director of the company and is responsible for the running of the day-to-day business of the company. In the SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1975 such averment has been to be sufficient to initiate the proceeding against a Director of a company for being vicariously liable for commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
It has been argued that certificate has been issued by the company that the petitioner was never in-charge of and responsible to the company for running its day-to-day affairs. Such issue may be probabilized as a defence by the petitioner during trial, however, in view of the requisite averment in the petition of complaint relating to vicarious liability, I am loath to interfere with the impugned proceeding at this stage.
2With the aforesaid liberty, the petitioner is disposed of.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)