TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (accused No. 1), and they are responsible for day-to-day conduct of the business of the Company. M/s. M.M. Enterprise has carried out certain works within the State of Assam with Sanwaria Infra Space Pvt. Ltd. (accused No. 1). In order to discharge its liability, M/s. Sanwaria Infra Space Pvt. Ltd., issued cheques to the respondent no. 1 amounting Rs. 19,82,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs eighty two thousand) which are due. The cheques were deposited by the respondent firm but the same were dishonoured and returned with a report that 'fund insufficient'. Thereafter, a statutory demand notice was served upon the respondents and the petitioners and thereafter, Complaint Case No. 2845c/2018 has been filed under Sections 138/141 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of the learned SDJM-II, Kamrup (Metro) against the petitioners and the other Directors of M/s. Sanwaria Infra Space Pvt. Ltd., upon which, the learned Court below has taken cognizance and issued process. Then being highly aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court for quashing the complaint case basically on 2(two) grounds, that the petitioner No. 1 tendered his resignation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....make good of his submission. 6. Whereas, Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is misconceived and filed without arraying the company as accused and that though the petitioners have submitted their resignation from the Board of Directors of the company, yet, the same were not accepted. And as such, Mr. Das submits that the petitioners are still Directors of the Company and are responsible for day to day affairs of the Company. Referring to one case law, Gunmala Sales Private Limited and Ors. vs. Navkar Promoters Private Limited and Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 103, Mr. Das submits that the present complaint case against the present petitioners cannot be quashed and the ex-parte interim order, that has been passed staying the proceeding against the petitioners, may be vacated and the matter may be remanded to the trial Court for disposal. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have gone through the petition and the document placed on record of the learned court below carefully. Also, I have gone through the case laws referred by the learned Advocates of both the parties. 8. It appears that the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offence. Now the question before this Court is whether the aforesaid averment made in the complaint against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are sufficient to fasten vicarious liability upon them. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the aforesaid bald statement is not at all sufficient to fasten vicarious liability upon the petitioners, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooja Ravinder Devidasani (supra). In the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for making a Director of a company liable for the offence under section 141 of the N.I. Act there must be specific averment against the Directors showing as to how and in what manner the Directors was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Thus, I find substance in the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the ratio laid down in the case referred by him fully endorsed his view. 12. In the case in hand admittedly, the petitioners have not issued the cheques and they have tendered their resignation much before issuance of the said cheques, moreover, they were not the Managing Director of the Company. In Po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hand, having considered the statements made in the complaint and also having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels of both the sides, this Court is left unimpressed that the aforementioned requirement is fulfilled here in this case. And as such further proceeding against the petitioners, in the learned court below, to the considered opinion of this court, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. In Sabitha Ramamurthy & Another Vs. R.B.S. Channbasavaradhya (2006) 10 SCC 581, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that by verbatim reproducing the wording of the section without a clear statement of fact supported by proper evidence, so as to make the accused vicariously liable is a good ground for quashing proceedings initiated against such person under section 141 of the N.I. Act. 15. I have also considered the submission of learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and also gone through the case law Gunmala Sales Private Limited (supra) referred by him, where it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "When in view of the basic averment process is issued the complaint must proceed against the Directors. But, ....