Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Section 14 in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 14A in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
13. A reading of Section 14A Sub-clause (i), it is
clear that, only the person responsible to the Company for
the conduct of the business of the Company as well as the
Company alone are liable to be prosecuted and not all
Directors. In other words, the appellants who are Directors,
cannot be prosecuted, unless there is pleadings and
evidences to show that, they were in charge and responsible
for the conduct of the business of the Company. This
position is settled as per the judgment of the Apex Court in
SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2005(4)
KLT 209). Initially, accused Nos.2 to 7 in this case are
CRL.A.No.356 OF 2006 9
arrayed as Directors and the 8th accused was arrayed as the
Manager. Later, the complainant himself admitted that,
accused numbers 5 to 7 are not liable. Accordingly, on a
motion by accused Nos.5 to 7, they were removed from the
party array. From this, as stated by the appellate court, it is
an indication that, there was no proper enquiry or findings
as regards the persons liable. The 8 th accused is not in the
picture before the trial court because, he was absconding.
Section 14 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
1