SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

Y.K.SABHARWAL, ARUN KUMAR, B.N.SRIKRISHNA
S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Neeta Bhalla – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsels :
P.S. Mishra, L.N. Rao, Avadh Behari Rohtagi, Sr. Advs., S. Chandra Shekhar, T. Harsh Varshan, D. Srinivas Prasad, Ravi Chandra Prasad, Upendra Mishra, Amitesh Chandra Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Anip Sachthey, Shriniwas R. Khalap, E Venu Kumar, Arvind Kumar, Mahesh Agarwal, Manu Krishnan, E.C. Agarwala, H.P. Sharma, Ashok Bhan, Satbir Pillania, Sudarsh Menon, Raj Nathan, Subramonium Prasad, Advs. with them—For the Appellant/Petitioners.
Ranjit Kumar and Sanjay Karaol, Sr. Advs., Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sandeep Narain, Shri Narain, Ms. Anjali Jha, Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Rajesh Srivastava, Naveen Kumar, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja and Ravindra K. Adsure, Advs. with them—For the Respondents.

Judgment

Arun Kumar, J. : This matter arises from a reference made by a two Judge Bench of this Court for determination of the following questions by a larger Bench :

"(a) whether for purposes of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is sufficient if the substance of the allegation read as a whole fulfill the requirements of the said section and it is not necessary to specifically state in the complaint that the persons accused was in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company.

(b) whether a director of a company would be deemed to be in charge of, and responsible to, the company for conduct of the business of the company and, therefore, deemed to be guilty of the offence unless he proves to the contrary.

(c) even if it is held that specific averments are necessary, whether in the absence of such averments the signatory of the cheque and or the Managing Directors of Joint Managing Director who admittedly would be in charge of the company and responsible to the company for conduct of its business could be proceeded against. "

2. The controversy has arisen in the context of prosecutions launched against officers of Companies under Sect




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top