TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....881(for short 'N.I. Act') for dishonor of cheques issued in respect of the same transaction. 2. The respondents had filed the complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act against Pantel Technologies Pvt. Limited and its directors, the present petitioners Javahar Lal and Vivek Prakash. The learned Trial Court after considering the material on the record, took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons. The present petitions have been filed praying that the proceedings pending before the learned MM be quashed qua the petitioner arrayed as accused No.2 in the complaints. 3. Mr. A.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramrajsingh vs. State of Madhya ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot have been without the active consent of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the DIR-12 reflects that the petitioner was a director of the accused company. Therefore, he cannot claim to have had no role to play. The judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Radha Krishna vs. Dasari Deepthi (2019) 15 SCC 550 and of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Unique Infoways Private Limited and Others vs. MPS Telecom Private Limited 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7808 have been relied upon by the learned counsel. It has also been asserted that the complaint refers to the role of the directors being the accused No.2 and 3 in the commission of the offence and there was no merit in the submissions of the petitioner. 5. I have heard the submissions of the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the N.I. Act raises a legal fiction creating vicarious liability, strict compliance with statutory requirements was called for. A joint liability to pay a debt will not be sufficient to make a person vicariously liable under Section 148 N.I. Act as observed in Alka Khandu Avhad vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra & Anr. (2021) 4 SCC 675. A civil liability cannot be confused with the criminal liability under Section 138 read with Section 141 N.I. Act. 7. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. versus Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89, followed in several cases thereafter, including Ramrajsingh(supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the complaint must contain specific averments explaining the role of the Director, particularly that at the time of the commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther used, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the complaints merely state that the accused No.2 and 3 are the Directors of the accused No.1/company and responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused No.1/company. 10. On that basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the twin requirement under Section 141 N.I. Act of a clear averment to the effect that the accused was not only responsible for the day to day affairs of the company but also in-charge of the conduct/ business of the company were not fulfilled and, therefore, material averments were absent. But it must be noted that it is not a single line of the complaint that will determine the matter. The complete averments in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner was indeed the Director of the company at the time when the offence was committed. The petitioner has not placed on record any document of sterling quality to show that he was either not a Director of the accused company or had been in a non-executive role. 13. But again, that will not suffice. The MoU, the Tripartite and Sale Agreements placed on the record as P-2 and P-3 dated 18th September, 2018 and 2nd December, 2018 have been executed between M/s Pantel Technologies Private Ltd., M/s OVT India Pvt. Ltd. and Independent TV Ltd. The petitioner claims that he has not signed these agreements, which is substantiated from the very documents. The first Tripartite Agreement has been signed by Mr. Vijender Singh for and on behalf....