800

A person cannot be made vicariously liable under the provisions of Section 141 of NI Act, merely by stating that he was in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day-conduct of the accused company at the relevant time when the offence was committed – Mr. Sandip Vinodkumar Patel and Ors. Vs. STCI Finance Ltd. and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the petitioners were independent, non-executive Director and that the complaints lack the necessary averments to endorse as to what was the active role of the petitioners and as to how the petitioners were guilty or responsible for the offence, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The present case is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

A person cannot be made vicariously liable under the provisions of Section 141 of NI Act, merely by stating that he was in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day-conduct of the accused company at the relevant time when the offence was committed – Mr. Sandip Vinodkumar Patel and Ors. Vs. STCI Finance Ltd. and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Export-Import Bank of India and Ors. v. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that this is one such case in which direction has to be issued to the Tribunal to admit the application filed under Section 7 of the Code in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 25.03.2022 wherein it has been held that the debt and default both are present in this case but the Tribunal did not admit the application only on the issue that the Application was found to be barred by limitation. The question of limitation was taken to the higher court and ultimately it has been proved that the application was within the limitation. In such circumstances, the Tribunal should not have gone in for further investigating on the issue as to whether there is debt and default in the present case for the purpose of admission of the application

Export-Import Bank of India and Ors. v. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether period of limitation provision of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013 is applicable to Section 244 of the Act? – Neeraj Gupta & Anr. Vs. A-1 Equipments (P) Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

It is found from the perusal of Section 244 read with Section 433 that no application is required to be filed for seeking condonation of delay as there is no limitation prescribed much less under Article 137 of the Act of 1963 for the purpose of applying within the period of three years. NCLAT held that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are totally satisfied that the impugned order is not sustainable. The Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside in so far as the application under Section 244 is concerned.

Whether period of limitation provision of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013 is applicable to Section 244 of the Act? – Neeraj Gupta & Anr. Vs. A-1 Equipments (P) Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top