Case Law Details
Case Name : Mrs. Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & ANR. (Supreme Court of India)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
Supreme Court of India
Sponsored
Mrs. Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & ANR. (Supreme Court of India)- In case of a Director, 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, (2010) 3 SCC 330].
In the case o
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Weakness of the case- It is not clear under what circumstances Apparel Export Promotion Council considered Mrs. Anita Malhotra as director of company or a person responsible in companys day to day affairs, and made her one of accused – treating her as director.
Whether, the cheque was signed by her as a director? If so it should have been pointed out.
If the cheque was signed by her as an authorized signatory, then also it should be specified?
If the cheque was not signed by her at all and in any capacity, then why she was made an accused. Particularly when, she informed that she had resigned long ago, then why she was continued as an accused, her name as accused should have been omitted by proper application and with leave of court.
Respondent being Apparel Export Promotion Council, normally supposed to have regular communication etc. with the concerned exporter company – namely M/s Lapareil Exports (P) Ltd. must have some information about appellant being a director or otherwise in charge of affairs of company. Why that was not mentioned?
Normally in case of a cheque issued by company, the proper course is to accuse the company, and the person who has signed the cheque, other directors and other managerial persons can also be added as accused as having managerial functions but it must be stated as to how they are in management etc. of company.
there is long time gap between date of resignation 20.11.1998, and the issue of cheque. A person can again become a director. One can become director again and therefore, exact position was to be ascertained.
If the cheque was signed by her as a director or Authorised Signatory, and Export Promotion Council was aware of her role in company, then she could have been described as a deemed director or managing director – director de-facto etc.But that was not done.
How annual return of company was not considered as a public document by the counsels of the respondent is again a surprising aspect of the case.
On overall basis it is clear that the case was not well prepared by the holder of cheque -Apparel Export Promotion Council & ANR, the respondents before the Supreme Court and and their counsels who appeared before lower courts and the Supreme Court.Had the case been presented properly the Supreme Court could have remitted the matter to lower court for proper examination.
We must learn from such judgment as to why one party wins and other loose the case.
Their is also learning as to avoid un-necessary litigation- the moot question in this case is why the appellant was accused as a person responsible for bouncing of cheque?