Section 138 NI Act – Summons To Directors Justified If Complaint Avers That They Were In Charge & Responsible For Conduct Of Business Of Company

Case: Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya and another versus M/s Gharrkul Industries Pvt Ltd.

Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S Oka

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No(S). 1206 Of 2021

Court Observation: “We are concerned in this case with Directors who are not signatories to the cheques. So far as Directors who are not the signatories to the cheques or who are not Managing Directors or Joint Managing Directors are concerned, it is clear from the conclusions drawn in the afore­stated judgment that it is necessary to aver in the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act that at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the Directors were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company”

“In the case on hand, reading the complaint as a whole, it is clear that the allegations in the complaint are that at the time at which the cheques were issued by the Company and dishonoured by the Bank, the appellants were the Directors of the Company and were responsible for its business and all the appellants were involved in the business of the Company and were responsible for all the affairs of the Company.

It may not be proper to split while reading the complaint so as to come to a conclusion that the allegations as a whole are not sufficient to fulfil the requirement of Section 141 of the NI Act. The complaint specifically refers to the point of time when the cheques were issued, their presentment, dishonour and failure to pay in spite of notice of dishonour. In the given circumstances, we have no hesitation in overruling the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellants”

[doc id=11135]

Previous Posts

Specific Performance – ‘Readiness’ & ‘Willingness’ Can’t Be Proved For First Time Before HC Through Affidavit Without Amending Pleadings: Supreme Court

Part-Time Employees Can’t Seek Regularization As Matter Of Right Contrary To Govt’s Regularization Policy: Supreme Court

Section 28 Contract Act – Clause Barring Payment Of Interest Not Hit: Supreme Court