2006 (2) TMI 717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in C.C. Nos. 2209 to 2216 of 2005 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Chennai, on the sole ground that she ceased to be the Director of the first accused company long prior to the issuance of the cheques which are the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. 2. The complainant, V.Manikandan, Proprietor, Manisha Traders, having alleged that the cheques issued by the first accused company for the existing liability were returned by the drawee bank with an endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer' when the said cheques were presented for payment. After giving due notice and having waited for the payment to be made by the first accused company, the respondent/complainant has laid the pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time has to be averred as a fact, it has been ruled. 6. On a perusal of the complaints filed by the complainant in the aforesaid cases, it is found that there is a specific averment that the petitioner/third accused being the Director of the first accused-company was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. 7. Of course, the petitioner has filed xerox copies of the extract of form-32 submitted to the Registrar of Companies by M/s. Amalgam Leather Private Limited, the first accused-company, which would prima facie show that the petitioner herein had resigned from t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent Form No. 32 would reveal that the second petitioner was not the director who was in-charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company during the relevant period and as such, the proceedings as against the second petitioner are liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. 11. This Court in I. Dharmapaul v. D. Chandrasekaran 2001 Comp Cas 518 - B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.) had taken a contrary view as follows:-  That it was not necessary to go into the question what was the part played by the petitioner regarding the management of the company, it was sufficient that there was an averment that he was at the helm of affairs of the company. 12. The very same contrary view taken by this Court in M.S. Rama Mohan Rao....