Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)
Davinder Kaur vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 22 July, 2015 cites

K.K. Ahuja vs V.K. Vora & Anr on 6 July, 2009

4. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the company secretary of the accused company. By referring to the provisions of Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 2(24) of the Companies Act, 2013 Mr. Banerjee submits that the term "company secretary" is introduced for the first time in the Companies Act of 2013 and that the Company Secretary is entrusted with the duty to perform administrative and ministerial functions of the company. He further submits that the averments in the petition of complaint to the effect that the Directors were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company may be sufficient for issuance of summons to those Directors of the company to face the charge under Section 138 and under Section 141(1) of the N. I. Act. According to Mr. Banerjee, there is need of specific averments in the petition of complaint for issuance of summons against the company secretary of the company to the effect that there was specific role of the company secretary in the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and the offence was committed with his consent or connivance or negligence as laid down under Section 141(2) of the N. I. Act. The specific contention of Mr. Banerjee is that the petitioner was not at the helm of affairs of the accused company and she did not play any role in the transaction between the accused company and the opposite party no.2 as she is not entrusted with the duty to perform any financial function of the accused company. The last submission of Mr. Banerjee is that the proceeding may be quashed against the petitioner though the trial has commenced and some of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the trial court. Mr. Banerjee has relied on "K. K. Ahuja V. V. K. Vora" reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48 and "Udai Shankar Awasthi V. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2013) 2 SCC 435 in support of his above contentions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 454 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Udai Shankar Awasthi vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 9 January, 2013

4. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the company secretary of the accused company. By referring to the provisions of Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 2(24) of the Companies Act, 2013 Mr. Banerjee submits that the term "company secretary" is introduced for the first time in the Companies Act of 2013 and that the Company Secretary is entrusted with the duty to perform administrative and ministerial functions of the company. He further submits that the averments in the petition of complaint to the effect that the Directors were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company may be sufficient for issuance of summons to those Directors of the company to face the charge under Section 138 and under Section 141(1) of the N. I. Act. According to Mr. Banerjee, there is need of specific averments in the petition of complaint for issuance of summons against the company secretary of the company to the effect that there was specific role of the company secretary in the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and the offence was committed with his consent or connivance or negligence as laid down under Section 141(2) of the N. I. Act. The specific contention of Mr. Banerjee is that the petitioner was not at the helm of affairs of the accused company and she did not play any role in the transaction between the accused company and the opposite party no.2 as she is not entrusted with the duty to perform any financial function of the accused company. The last submission of Mr. Banerjee is that the proceeding may be quashed against the petitioner though the trial has commenced and some of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the trial court. Mr. Banerjee has relied on "K. K. Ahuja V. V. K. Vora" reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48 and "Udai Shankar Awasthi V. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2013) 2 SCC 435 in support of his above contentions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 168 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next