TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onam Super Multi-Specialty Hospital Private Limited and its Director-respondent No.2 Rajesh Sharma, respondent No.3 Santosh Kumar Sharma and petitioner Naveen Kumar. It is specifically pleaded in the complaint that all the Directors are incharge and are responsible for the business of respondent No.2 and its day to day affairs. For the project of respondent No.2-firm, a MOU was executed on 19.01.2012 between the accused and the complainant and as per the terms of said MOU, the complainant firm paid a sum of Rs. 21 lacs as interest free refundable security to the accused, which was to be refunded at the time of transfer of total land by the complainant firm to the accused persons. The accused persons gave a counter guarantee cheque bearing N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company prior to the execution of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU-for short) dated 19.01.2012; (iv) petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and worked with respondent M/s Poonam Super Multi-Specialty Hospital Private Limited as Director till 29.03.2011 when he resigned and his resignation was accepted on the same day; (v) In reply to the legal notice served on the petitioner by respondent No.1, he had replied and clarified his position; (vi) The dispute pertains to the MOU dated 19.01.2012 to which petitioner is neither a signatory nor a party. Referring to the resignation letter (Annexure P-2), learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner had resigned as Director of M/s Poonam Super Multi-Specialty Hospital Private Limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Director of M/s Poonam Super Multi-Specialty Hospital Private Limited and is incharge and responsible for the conduct and business and day to day affairs of the company along with other Directors. The resignation, if any, submitted by the petitioner was never brought to the notice of general public or necessary intimation was given to the Registrar of Companies. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Saumil Dalip Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2002 AIR (Bombay) 194 and has argued that after the resignation by the petitioner, it was the duty of the Companies Secretary and not of the individual Director to send due intimation and information to the Registrar of Companies. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner had raise....