Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The allegations in the instant case are serious. They relate to fraudulent inviting of deposits from unsuspecting members of the public by the accused persons who were running chit fund business and misappropriating such monies running to hundreds of crores. The principal accused namely, Monoranjan Roy and his family ran the Pincon Group of Companies and are the prime architects of such corporate fraud entailing loss to innumerable individuals. Role of the petitioner, it has been argued, is restricted to the affairs of M/s. ASK Financial Services Ltd. and that too till 3rd October, 2012 when she retired from the directorship of the company. It has also been argued that the belated communication to the Registrar of Companies i.e. on 26th April, 2013 cannot be attributable to the petitioner as there was transfer of ownership of the company in favour of Pincon Group of Companies over which the petitioner had no control.

It is trite law that the resignation of a Director of the company takes place from the date on which it is submitted with the company. However, in a case involving conspiracy amongst the directors of a company who were indulging in corporate fraud, one must also examine the attending facts and circumstances of the case to ensure as to whether such resignation from the directorship of the company is a smokescreen one to evade culpability or not.

We have, therefore, examined the facts of the case from that perspective. From the materials collected in the course of investigation we do not find any relation between the petitioner and the Pincon Group of Companies who happened to acquire ASK Financial Services Ltd. in or about October, 2012. Pursuant to such transfer of ownership, the petitioner appears to have resigned from the directorship of the company. Inspite of repeated queries, learned advocate appearing for the State could not place before us any role of the petitioner in the affairs of the aforesaid company or any other company owned by Pincon Group or interaction with depositors since her resignation. Admittedly, no deposits had been invited and made to the company prior to her resignation on 3rd October, 2012. It is also important to note that upon the transfer of ownership the management of the aforesaid company shifted into the hands of Pincon Group. There are no materials on record to show that petitioner played any role in the affairs of the said company thereafter or received any benefits therefrom. Hence, we are of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner did not have control over its affairs since her resignation and could not have ensured prompt submission of her resignation with the Registrar of Companies.