TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....528 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quashing of Order dated 31.05.2024 vide which the Ld. M.M has summoned the Petitioner in C.C. No. 4668-4671/2024 for offence under S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). 2. Briefly stated, Accused No. 1/M/s Ninaniya Estates Limited represented to the Complainant that they have absolute ownership of parcel of land bearing Killa No. 4/18/2/1, 18/2/2, 19, 21/2, 22, 26, 8/2, 48/8/3, 12, 13/1 admeasuring 20,876.97 sq. yds in Revenue estate of Gwal Pahari, Gurgaon. It was further represented to the Complainant that they have all the necessary regulatory approvals for the construction of a Five Star Hotel and that they are in the process of constructing one called "Prism Hotel & Suites". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., despite which no payment was made within 15 days by the Accused. 7. Thus, the Complaint under S.138 NI Act was filed. Summons were issued against M/s Ninaniya Estates Limited and the Petitioner/Vijay Singh Rao vide Order dated 31.05.2024. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the present Petition is preferred seeking quashing of the Summoning Order on the ground that the impugned Order is passed in a totally mechanical manner and the same is against the well-settled principles of law i.e. while taking cognizance/summoning the Ld. MM has to examine carefully whether the ingredients of an offence have been made out or not against 'each' proposed Accused. 9. It is submitted that the Petitioner has not signed any document or cheque regarding the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he cheques or was the one looking after the banking or the finance of the Accused no. 1/M/s Ninaniya Estate Pvt. Ltd. 12. It is submitted that the Ld. MM erred in summoning the Petitioner without even examining the Complaint and the documents attached therewith. 13. The Ld. M.M failed to appreciate that there is no role ascribed to the Petitioner and no averment is brought forth to make him liable vicariously, and in this regard, reference is made to NSIC Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 330 wherein it is observed that that vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. 14. Further reliance is placed on Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed No. 1 Company. 19. The principles for making the person vicariously liable for the affairs of the Company were stated by the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada vs. M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 2795. After referring to judgments in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs. Motorola Inc and Ors., 2004 (1) BOM CR 479 and Standard Chartered Bank and others vs. Directorate of Enforcement and others, AIR 2006 SC 1301, it had observed that "the Company can have criminal liability and further, if a group of persons that guide the business of the companies have the criminal intent, that would be imputed to the body corporate. In this backdrop, Section 141 of the Act has to be understood. The said provision clearly stipulates that when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 2019 decided on 01.08.2022. 22. In the Complaint, it has been specifically averred that the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 along with the other co-accused/Prateik Rao are the Directors, who are in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs. The Complainant had annexed along with the Complaint, the details of the Directors from the MCA Website wherein there are six Directors indicated out of which, Prateik Rao is the Managing Director while the Petitioner herein is shown as the Director. Though, there are names of other four Directors as well but it has been specifically mentioned in the Complaint that only the Petitioner and the co-accused/Prateik Rao, the Managing Director were in-charge and responsible for the day-t....