Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Mr. Mahesh K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint observing that since the company had not been impleaded as an accused, the liability of the respondent as its Managing Director could not be attached under section 141 of the N.I. Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this reliance was misplaced and instead of rectifying the error, the learned Appellate Court also concluded that the dismissal of the complaint was proper, as the Trial Court had followed the decision of the Supreme Court which had held that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the N.I. Act, the Company had to be arrayed mandatorily as an accused. The learned counsel has relied on various judgments, S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609; Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla, (2001) 1 SCC 631; Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. v. A. Chinnaswami, (1999) 5 SCC 693; U.P. Pollution Control Board vs Modi Distillery & Ors, 1988 AIR 1128 and Manish Kalani & Another v. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco) & Another, 2018 MPHC 13, to contend that when the lacuna was only of a technical nature, then the Trial Court ought to have allowed amendment of the complaint, rather than dismissing it. Thus, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the complaint be restored, granting an opportunity to the petitioner to amend his plaint to, ipso M/s Accura Care Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the judgment in Aneeta Hada (supra) was a per incuriam judgment, as the Supreme Court in other cases had held that mis-description of the company or the non- inclusion of the company in a complaint case was only a curable defect which could be rectified by way of amendment.

5. I have considered the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material on the record.

6. The contention of the learned counsel that Aneeta Hada's case is per incurium as it has overlooked the decisions of the Supreme Court in U.P. Pollution Control Board (supra), Rajneesh Aggarwal (supra) and Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. (supra) is completely misplaced. Aneeta Hada's case is an exhaustive judgment. U.P. Pollution Control Board (supra) has been specifically referred to in this case in Para 52. The decisions in Rajneesh Aggarwal and Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. cases were also cited before the Supreme Court and referred to in para 16 of the judgment. Except for making a wild claim that a three judges‟ decision in Aneeta Hada (supra) is per incuriam, the learned counsel has been completely unable to explain how it was so.

7. Before coming to the decision in Aneeta Hada's case, the other three judgments may be discussed. In U.P. Pollution Control Board (supra), instead of lodging a prosecution against M/s Modi Industries Ltd., its unit called M/s Modi Distillery had been impleaded. Since this error had occurred on account of the details furnished by the Board of the company itself, it was held that the infirmity was curable as it was of a minor kind. However, it was held that there could be no vicarious liability saddled on the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director and other members of the Board of Directors of the Company [under Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974] unless there was a prosecution of the Company, which in that case was M/s Modi Industries Ltd. and not M/s Modi Distillery. That was the reason why the court went on to hold that in order to make the controlling company of the Industrial Unit as an accused in the complaint, all that was required was filing of a formal application for amendment seeking leave to amend or substitute the name of M/s Modi Industries Ltd. in place of M/s Modi Distillery.