Case Law Details
Gopala Krishna Mootha Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr (Delhi High Court)
In a Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act a person cannot avoid liability by merely stating that owing to his age he is unable to manage the affairs of the company
It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he is a non-executive director. The petitioner is a full-time director. The complaint read as a whole indicates that at the time of cheques being issued by the company and returned by the bank, the son of the petitioner and the petitioner were the only directors of the company and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order dated 03.02.2021 issuing summons to the petitioner herein.
The latest judgments of the Supreme Court in Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya & Anr. v. Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 915, squarely covers the present case. It is for the petitioner to establish in trial that he was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company owing to his age and the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that he is 80 years of age and is unable to manage the affairs of the company cannot be accepted at this stage and the complaint cannot be quashed on that basis.
The observations made by this Court is limited to the issue as to whether the complaint should be quashed or not because of the fact that the complaint does not state the exact role of the petitioner in the conduct of the business of the company.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
