The liability of company directors for the company's liabilities even after it has been struck off from the register of companies.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred against an order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 19th Court at Calcutta, in Complaint Case No. C/11294/12 (M/s. Biman Bangladesh Airlines Limited Versus M/s. Kuka Travels Private Limited & Ors.).

2. The petitioner M/s. Biman Bangladesh Airlines Limited is an International Airlines Company, incorporated and registered under the Companies Act of Bangladesh (Act XVIII) 1994 having its Registered Office at “BALAKA BHABAN”, Dhaka, Bangladesh and being a Global Transport Company is carrying on its business through Branch Offices all over the World. In Eastern India, the Branch Office, is situated at 99A, Park Street, Siddha Park, 6th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 and is being represented through it’s Authorized Representative namely Shakia Sultana being duly authorized by virtue of Power of Attorney executed by the Director dated 15.04.2018.

3. The Opposite Party No. 1 is a Company, registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Office at 4/1, Sudder Street, Kolkata – 700 016 and the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 were the Directors of the Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Company and were responsible for the day to day affairs as well as the business administration of the said Company at the relevant point of time, when the offence was committed.

4. That in discharge of business liabilities, the Opposite Party No. 1, the Company, Kuka Travels (P) Limited issued one Account Payee Cheque, being No. 281831 dated 22.02.2012 drawn on Bank of India, Lindsey Street Branch, Kolkata – 700 087, West Bengal, in favour of “Biman Bangladesh Airlines Limited”, amounting to Rs. 17,44,421/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty One) only.

5. The said Cheque bears the Signature of the Opposite Party No. 2 being one of the Directors of the Opposite Party No. 1 and both the Opposite Parties No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 were well conversant regarding the issuance of cheque as they were responsible for day to day affairs of Opposite Party No.1.

6. The Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 at the relevant time also performed several business affairs of the Opposite Party No.1 as the Directors of the Opposite Party No.1.

7. The petitioner Company deposited the said Cheque within validity period, on 25.04.2012 for encashment of the said Cheque through its Banker “The Sonali Bank Limited”, Park Street, Kolkata.

8. The Petitioner Company received an information from its Banker “The Sonali Bank Limited” on 26.04.2012 that the said Cheque which was deposited for encashment had been returned unpaid by the Banker of the Opposite Party No.1, i.e. Bank of India with the endorsement /remark “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” alongwith the Cheque Return Memo dated 26.04.2012 issued by Bank of India, Service Branch, Kolkata.

9. After receiving such information, the Petitioner Company served a Legal Demand Notice through their Advocate’s Letter dated 04.05.2012 making demand for payment of said dishonoured Cheque Amount from the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said Notice. The said Notice was duly issued by Registered Post with A/D at the given last correct address with proper postal charges which was received by the Directors of the Opposite Party No. 1 Company being the Opposite Party nos. 2 & 3 on 08.05.2012. But the said Demand Notice was returned back unserved upon the Opposite Party No.1 to the Learned Advocate’s Office at 6, Old Post Office Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata. – 700 001.

10. The petitioner states that in spite of issuance of such Demand Notice for payment of the amount covered by the said Cheque, the Opposite Parties failed and neglected to make payment of the said amount, covered by the said dishonoured Cheque and thus the Opposite Parties had jointly committed an Offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

1