Director's Liability under Companies Act Upheld; Abuse of Court Process Dismissed

The court held that the petitioner, as an additional director at the time of the alleged offenses, was prima facie liable for violations under Section 217(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. Quashing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of court process, leading to the dismissal of CRR 1752 of 2020. All related applications were resolved, interim orders were lifted, and the judgment was to be forwarded to the Trial Court for appropriate action.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings under Section 217(5) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Liability of the petitioner as an independent director.
3. Interpretation of the petitioner's role and responsibilities.
4. Applicability of General Circular No. 1/2020.
5. Abuse of process of Court.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of Proceedings under Section 217(5) of the Companies Act, 1956
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in Case No. CS/0108647/2016 pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court at Kolkata. The complaint alleged that the Board of Directors of M/s Mani Square Limited failed to furnish the fullest information and explanation in their Director's report concerning the Auditor's report for the year ending on 31st March 2014, resulting in a violation of Section 217(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The competent authority issued instructions to launch prosecution for this violation.

Issue 2: Liability of the Petitioner as an Independent Director
The petitioner argued that he was appointed as an independent director of M/s Mani Square Limited with effect from 2nd June 2014 and was not associated with the company during the financial year ending on 31st March 2014. Therefore, he contended that he should not be held liable for the alleged violations. The petitioner's appointment and resignation details were provided, showing he joined as an independent director on 2nd June 2014 and resigned on 31st December 2016.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the Petitioner's Role and Responsibilities
The court examined the petitioner's role, noting that he was invited to join the Board on 2nd May 2014 and gave his consent on 6th May 2014. Form DIR-12 indicated he was an "Additional Director" and "Independent" category. The petitioner's resignation was filed using Form DIR-11, showing his tenure from 30th September 2014 to 31st December 2016. The court considered the petitioner's claim that he was an independent director and not responsible for the board report filed on 5th September 2014.

Issue 4: Applicability of General Circular No. 1/2020
The petitioner referenced the General Circular No. 1/2020 from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which advised against unnecessary criminal proceedings against independent directors and non-executive directors. The court noted that the petitioner's role as an additional director from 2nd June 2014 to 30th September 2014 made him liable for the alleged violations, as the board report for the financial year 2013-2014 was filed on 5th September 2014.

Issue 5: Abuse of Process of Court
The court deliberated on whether the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. It was argued that the petitioner was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and did not attend board meetings or sign the disputed report. The court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings on corporate criminal liability, emphasizing that directors could be held liable only if there was sufficient evidence of their active role and criminal intent.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner was an additional director at the time the board report was filed and thus prima facie liable for the alleged offences. The court determined that quashing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and dismissed CRR 1752 of 2020. All connected applications were disposed of, and interim orders, if any, were vacated. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.

---