Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.00 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 141 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 291 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007
21) Relying on the judgment of this Court in N.
Rangachari vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (2007) 5
SCC 108, learned counsel for the appellants further
contended that a payee of cheque that is dishonoured can
be expected to allege is that the persons named in the
complaint are in-charge of its affairs and the Directors are
prima facie in that position. However, it is pertinent to
note that in this case it was specifically mentioned in the
complaint that (i) accused no. 2 was a director and in
charge of and responsible to the accused Company for the
conduct of its business; and (ii) the response of accused
no. 2 to the notice issued by BSNL that the said accused
is no longer the Chairman or Director of the accused
Company was false and by not keeping sufficient funds in
their account and failing to pay the cheque amount on
service of the notice, all the accused committed an offence.
Therefore, this decision is clearly distinguishable on facts
as in the said case necessary averments were made out in
the complaint itself.
Paresh P.Rajda vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 May, 2008
22) Learned counsel for the appellants after elaborately
arguing the matter, by inviting our attention to Paresh P.
Rajda vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2008) 7 SCC
442 contended that a departure/digression has been
made by the Court in the case of N. Rangachari vs.
BSNL (supra). However, in this case also the Court has
observed in para 4 that the High Court had noted that an
overall reading of the complaint showed that specific
allegations had been leveled against the accused as being
a responsible officer of the accused Company and
therefore, equally liable. In fact, the Court recorded the
allegations in the complaint that the Complainant knew
all the accused and that accused no. 1 was the Chairman
21
of the accused Company and was responsible for day to
day affairs of the Company.
K.K. Ahuja vs V.K. Vora & Anr on 6 July, 2009
23) Though, the learned counsel for the appellants relying
on a recent decision in K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora & Anr.,
(2009) 10 SCC 48, it is clearly recorded that in the
complaint it was alleged that the accused were in-charge
22
of and was responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day
business of the accused Company and further all the
accused were directly and actively involved in the financial
dealings of the Company and the same was also reiterated
in the pre-summoning evidence. Furthermore, this
decision also notes that it is necessary to specifically aver
in a complaint that the person accused was in-charge of
and responsible for the conduct of the business of the
Company.
Saroj Kumar Poddar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 16 January, 2007
Furthermore, this decision does not
20
and could not have overruled the decisions in S.M.S.
Pharmaceutical's case (three-Judge Bench)(supra),
Ramraj Singh's case (three-Judge Bench)(supra), Saroj
Kumar Poddar's case (supra) and N.K. Wahi's case
(supra) wherein it is clearly held that specific averments
have to be made against the accused Director.
Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr vs R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya on 13 September, 2006
Furthermore, this decision does not
20
and could not have overruled the decisions in S.M.S.
Pharmaceutical's case (three-Judge Bench)(supra),
Ramraj Singh's case (three-Judge Bench)(supra), Saroj
Kumar Poddar's case (supra) and N.K. Wahi's case
(supra) wherein it is clearly held that specific averments
have to be made against the accused Director.