Director of company can be made accused in cheque dishonour case in absence of specific allegation against him

Mr. Chapalgaonkar has relied upon the observation in the case reported in (2012) SCC 520 wherein, it is observed that:

This Court has repeatedly held that in case of a Director, the complaint should specifically spell out how and in what manner the Director was in charge of or was responsible to the accused Company for conduct of its business and mere bald statement that he or she was in charge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business is not sufficient.

(Vide National Small Industries Corporation Limited vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another,). In the case on hand, particularly, in para 4 of the complaint, except the mere bald and cursory statement with regard to the appellant, the complainant has not specified her role in the day to day affairs of the Company. We have verified the averments as regard to the same and we agree with the contention of Mr. Akhil Sibal that except reproduction of the statutory requirements the complainant has not specified or elaborated the role of the appellant in the day to day affairs of the Company. On this ground also, the appellant is entitled to succeed.

21. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the present applicants have already resigned from the posts of directors. Secondly there are no specific and sufficient allegation against the applicants that they were looking after and responsible for day today affairs of the company. Thus for the reasons stated above, application is allowed and the relief is granted in terms of prayer clause B. Application is disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 813 of 2017

Decided On: 25.09.2018

Baba Chandrashekhar Radhakrishnan  Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.L. Wadane, J.