TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (10) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vident fund or employees' State insurance dues by respondent No. 1-company or any violation of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, or the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and the rules framed thereunder. 2. Before stating the facts, it is necessary to reproduce Section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956, which is as follows : "Power of court to grant relief in certain cases. - (1) If in any proceeding for negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust against an officer of a company, it appears to the court hearing the case that he is or may be liable in respect of the negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust, but that he has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 1, Snehlataganj, Main Road, Indore. The petitioner, who is a chartered accountant, is a nominated director of the respondent-company. But the petitioner is neither a shareholder of the said company nor has any financial interest therein as such. Further, according to the petitioner, he is a prominent chartered accountant and also director of various other companies as mentioned in the petition. Thus, he was invited to join the board of directors in his capacity as a professional chartered accountant, he having been working as a partner of M/s. Chaturvedi and Co. and residing at Calcutta. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition under an appre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the respondent-company for its failure to comply, with the provisions of these two Acts. However, the petitioner has not, disputed that even the employees' contributions deducted from their wages by the respondent-company under these two Acts were also not deposited by the respondent-company nor had the respondent-company as an employer deposited their contributions under these two Acts. 7. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this petition as he apprehends that if any action is taken against him as a director of the respondent-company, he will be put to unnecessary harassment and expenditure as he is not at all concerned with the day-to-day management and affairs of the respondent-company. 8. Further, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner also. Therefore, there is no question of granting any relief to the petitioner now though learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also submitted that as the said mills is closed from June 6, 1986, no action for the subsequent period is being taken under the provisions of these two Acts. However, learned counsel submitted that, according to the provisions of Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the petitioner is an "occupier" as defined therein and that this fact has been admitted by the petitioner in annexure R-2 dated June 3, 1981, filed under the provisions of these Acts wherein in column 11, the name of the petitioner has been shown at S. No. 3 to point out that he is also in the day....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a strict view should be taken including levying penalty by way of damages as has been held in Organic Chemical Industries v. Union of India [1979] 55 FJR 283 : AIR 1979 SC 1803. 12. Learned counsel for the said respondent also placed reliance on the decisions in Trisure India Ltd., In re : Richard Laurence Parish v. Registrar of Companies, Suresh Tulsi-das Kilachand v. Collector of Bombay, Suresh Tulsidas Kilachand v. Collector of Bombay [1984] 64 FJR 399 : [1984] Lab IC 1614, State of U.P. v. Lalaram Gupta [1974] Lab IC 963, Khetramohan Nayak v. Sri Sidha Kamal Nayana Ramanuj Das, B.M. Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal AIR 1970 Cal 290 and Nathulal Govardhan v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [1984] MPLJ 340 : [ 1985] 66 FJR 66 (M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reliance on the decisions in Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M. P. IR 1984 SC 1688 : [1986] 68 FJR 98, Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd. v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation [1985] Lab IC 1318 (P & H), B.M. Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 Cal 290 and Nathulal Govardhan v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [1984] MPLJ 340 : [1985] 66 FJR 66 (MP), wherein it has been held that the director of a limited company is an owner and, therefore, the principal employer within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief from this court in this manner. Learned counsel also submitted that, admittedly, even the emp....