SRI SUBROTO CHOUDHURY S/O AMULYA KISHAN CHOUDHURY Vs. ARIHANT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND OTHERS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-86
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 06,2018

Sri Subroto Choudhury S/O Amulya Kishan Choudhury Appellant
VERSUS
Arihant International Limited And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. S. B Sharma on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M. K Sharma on behalf of respondent 3 to 5.
(2.) According to the petitioner he was working as an independent consultant-cumdirector under the Surface Technique (India) Private Ltd. Company and the authorized representative of the company is Sri Das Kumar Tiwari. The respondent No. 4 Smti. Poonam Thakur is the director of the said company. The petitioner as a director was discharging liason works only and he was not associated with the day to day affairs of the company and its administration nor anyway responsible for the conduct of the company. The respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint on 3.6.2013 before the court of CJM, Kamrup with the allegation that as the respondent has some business relation with the complainant company and accordingly towards discharging the unpaid amount for purchasing cement from the complainant company, the accused No. 1 Smti. Poonam Thakur issued one cheque of Rs. 25,06,800/- in favour of the complainant company on 30.3.2013 for an amount of Rs. 25,06,800/- but on depositing the cheque in the bank same was returned unpaid to the complainant's bank for which after serving required notice under Negotiable Instrument Act, the case was filed against the said director along with all the persons concerned with the said company. The present petitioner was one of the director in the said company.
(3.) Now, the petitioner contends that he is not associated with the day to day work of the company and due to certain compelling reasons he tendered his resignation from the post of director on 14.8.2013 followed by his reminder dated 7.4.2014 and finally on 10.5.2014 his resignation was confirmed. It is contended that the court has taken cognizance under section 138 NI Act and nothing was there to bring the petitioner within the purview of section 141 of NI Act and moreover the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the section 141 NI Act as he is not under the category of person who are responsible to the conduct of the business of the company. Challenging the aforesaid proceeding the present petition has been preferred under section 482 to quash the proceeding.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.