TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e bills raised in the Month of April 2003, the petitioner made payments on various dates and completed paying the amount for the bill of April 2003, only by the end of August 2003. The petitioner issued a cheque dated 02.09.2003 for Rs. 2,16,150/- and another cheque dated 25.02.2004 for Rs. 75,000/-, which were dishonoured on the ground of "insufficient funds". When the respondent informed the petitioner about the same, the petitioner promised to give cheques of current date to the value of the dishonoured cheques, which the petitioner did not honour. On 26.02.2004, the petitioner sent an e-mail to the respondent that due to their revenues being staggered, there was delay in payment to the respondent and assured that, future payments will be on time. Believing the petitioner, the respondent continued to work for him. The respondent had written to the petitioner on 27.02.2004 giving a statement of accounts and also the amounts payable as on 27.02.2004 is Rs. 7,57,591/-. When the respondent's Marketing Executive called on the petitioner on 27.02.2004, the petitioner promised that he would give the cheques for the above values and hence, the respondent printed his magazine in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... address of one Hitesh V. Shah stating as if he is the Director. The complaint has been initiated against M/s.MUV Multitech (P) Ltd. Represented by its Manager without naming anybody. Since the summons were handed over to the company, the present manager Mr.Sanjay appeared before the Trial Court on 25.04.2013 and filed vakalat for the company. 6. It is also stated in the petition that the complaint in C.C.No.21434 of 2005 was filed for the dishonour of Cheques given by the petitioner on various dates for the services rendered by the respondent in printing his magazines. In the said complaint, it has been only stated that the cheques given by the petitioner were dishonoured, and nothing has been stated as to who has signed the cheques. Originally, the name of the company alone was there in the complaint, and only after the appearance of Mr.Sanjay on behalf of the company, the cause title was corrected as the company represented by its manager Mr.Sanjay. But no statutory notice was given to the manager Mr.Sanjay nor summons were issued on him on behalf of the petitioner company. The Sanjay is only an employee of the petitioner and he has not signed the cheques mentioned above. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....address of the Director and served the summon to him. The name of the person who signed the cheque is not clear and the respondent does not know who was really in charge of the affairs of the company at the time of issuance of the cheques and therefore they made the manager of the company as accused in the complaint. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the materials available on record. 10. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner / accused is a private limited company, which has been dealing with the respondent from the month of April 2003 for printing its bi-monthly magazine called "Animation Reporter". The respondent has issued bills to the petitioner for the services rendered by them and the petitioner also issued a cheque dated 02.09.2003 for Rs. 2,16,150/- and another cheque dated 25.02.2004 for Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent. When the respondent has presented the cheques, the same were dishonoured as "insufficient funds". Hence, the respondent has informed the petitioner about the same. Thereafter, the petitioner has issued a cheque dated 26.04.2004 for Rs. 1,93,778/- to the respondent, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in Kirshna Texport and Capital Markets Limited Vs. ILA.A.Agrawal and Others, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "16. Section 141 states that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a Company, every director of such Company who was in charge of and responsible to that Company for conduct of its business shall also be deemed to be guilty. The reason for creating vicarious liability is plainly that a juristic entity i.e. a Company would be run by living persons who are in charge of its affairs and who guide the actions of that Company and that if such juristic entity is guilty, those who were so responsible for its affairs and who guided actions of such juristic entity must be held responsible and ought to be proceeded against. Section 141 again does not lay down any requirement that in such eventuality the directors must individually be issued separate notices under Section 138. The persons who are in charge of the affairs of the Company and running its affairs must naturally be aware of the notice of demand under Section 138 of the Act issued to such Company. It is precisely for this reason that no notice is additionally contemplated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Company and responsible for the affairs of the Company would be aware of the receipt of notice by the Company under Section 138. Therefore neither on literal construction nor on the touchstone of purposive construction such requirement could or ought to be read into Section 138 of the Act." 13. Now it has to be seen as to whether the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the decision relied upon by him is sustainable. 14. At the outset, it has to be pointed out that after the complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on 07.02.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai, issued summon to one Hitesh V. Shah, who was the Director of the petitioner company. On receipt of the summon, one Sanjay, who is the Manager of the petitioner company, entered appearance before the Court below and copies were served to him. 15. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present Manager of the petitioner company was not issued individual statutory notice under Section 138, cannot be countenanced for the reason that, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Ho....