AMIT KOHLI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order of summoning, dated 18th March, 2006, in complaint Case No. 1906/2006 titled Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Duko advertising Pvt. Ltd. , on the ground that though the petitioners were the directors of respondent No. 3, they had resigned from directorship as back as 28th June, 2003 and their resignation was duly accepted and from that day they have no connection with the said respondent No. 3 and did not take part in the management and the affairs of the said company and are not responsible for any activities of respondent No. 3 after 28th June, 2003.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has very emphatically contended that in the complaint filed against the petitioners, as well as in the memo of parties, the petitioners have been described as Directors of respondent no. 3, though the petitioners tendered their resignation as Directors on 28th June, 2003 and they are not taking part in the day to day management or affairs of the company.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on (2007) JCC 171, j. N. Bhatia and Ors v. State and Anr; 2007 (1) LRC 9 (SC), Sabitha Ramamurthy and anr v. R. B. S. Channabasavaradhya and 2007 (1) LRC 165 (SC), Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr to contend that since they are no more the directors and they have produced certified copy of Form no. 32, the complaint against them is liable to be quashed. Perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 reveals that the allegation against the petitioners are not restricted only to petitioners being the Directors and responsible for day to day work. The respondent No. 2 has categorically contended that the petitioners on earlier occasions were representing themselves as authorized representatives of the advertising agency and had released advertisement on a regular basis to the respondent No. 2. It has also been categorically contended that respondent no. 3 being the advertising agency, the petitioners and other directors, respondents No. 2 and 3 in the complaint, namely Mrs. Kavita Vohra and Mr. Ravi Vohra, are the authorized signatories and are handing the affairs of Delhi office. It is also asserted that the petitioners and other authorized signatories are looking after the day to day affairs of the advertising agency and it is their responsibility to clear all such liabilities that fall on the respondent No. 3 and by giving the cheques of respondent No. 3 to the complainant company, the petitioners and other authorized signatories have acknowledged their liability towards the complainant company. It is also categorically pleaded that despite the notice received by the petitioners they have refused to clear their outstanding dues and did not even care to approach the respondent No. 2/complainant company to clear their outstanding dues. The relevant paragraphs containing the specific averments against the petitioners are as under:-