National Housing Bank Act, 1987 – ss. 29A rw s. 50 – Offence by companies – Vicarious liability of the Directors – Averment in the complaint, if essential requirement – Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint for the offence u/s. 29A
(i) rw s. 50 and punishable u/s. 49 (2A) against the first accused-company, second accused-Managing director and other five accused as directors – High Court quashed the complaint in its entirety – Justification:
Held: Unless assertions, as required by sub-section (1) of s. 50, are made, vicarious liability of the Directors of the first accused company not attracted – No assertions made that the second to seventh accused, at the time of the commission of the offence, were in charge of, and responsible to the first accused company for the conduct of its business – In the absence of the averments, the trial court could not have taken cognizance of the offence against the third to seventh accused, who are allegedly the directors of the first accused company – However, the second accused being the Managing Director, would be in charge of the company and responsible to the company for its business, thus, no justification for quashing the complaint against the second accused – First respondent is a company – No reasons have been assigned to quash the complaint against the first accused – Impugned order is modified – Complaint quashed as against the third to seventh accused, however, the complaint to proceed against the first and second accused. [Paras 6, 8, 9]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.