Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Agarwal vs State & Anr. on 28 July, 2010
5.In terms of the judgement titled as Rajesh Agarwal v. State
[171(2010) DLT 51], the accused persons moved an application under
section 145(2) NI Act. Order dated 13.03.2013 shows that the
applications were kept for consideration on 14.03.2013 but on that
day, no formal order allowing the applications was passed and rather
the CW-1 was allowed to be examined and cross-examined. Be that
as it may, no party has any issues over this.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
The burden would be upon the
complainant only to aver and prove by leading positive evidence to
show that such an employee or a Director was in charge of or
responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused company so as to
hold him vicariously liable. In the absence of such a role specifically
attributed to them, any or every Director, officer or employee of a
company cannot be held liable. It is also well settled that the
complainant has to explain by bringing on record the necessary facts
that how and in what manner such persons can be held liable and a
CC No. 216/13 Page 7 of 14
bald averment that they were so responsible for the conduct of affairs
of the company, would not serve the purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla
[(2005) 8 SCC 89] has laid down that it is necessary for the
complainant to specifically aver in the complaint that at the time when
the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of or
responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Without this
averment being made, requirements of section 141 NI Act would not
be satisfied. All the Directors in a company (or other officers or
employees) cannot be deemed to be in charge of or responsible for the
conduct of business of the company. With the exception of a
Managing Director or the signatory of the cheque, to implicate any
other person as vicariously liable, there has to be specific averment
and proof of his role.
National Small Industries Corp.Ltd vs Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr on 15 February, 2010
14.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India subsequently in the case titled
as National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh
Paintal [167 (2010) DLT 143] held that vicarious liability on the part
of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. The said
liability does not arrive merely on the basis of designation or office
which a person holds in a company and a bald cursory statement in a
complaint that a Director made an accused was in charge of or
responsible to the company for the conduct of its affairs, without
anything more as to his role, would not be sufficient.
Anil Sachar & Anr vs M/S Shree Nath Spinners P.Ltd.& Ors.Etc on 19 July, 2011
19.There is no force in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the
complainant that every Director is presumed to have committed the
CC No. 216/13 Page 11 of 14
offence and that the burden would be upon such Director to prove
otherwise. There is no such presumption and the initial burden is only
upon the complainant to aver and prove that any particular Director
was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the
company at the relevant time when the offence was committed. The
precedent cited by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant titled as Anil
Sachar v. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 148]
would give no benefit to the complainant as in that case, the accused
was signatory of the dishonoured cheque.
1