ASHOK MALHOTRA Vs. MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in Crl. O.Ps. 16531 and 16532 of 1999 is Ashok Malhotra and the petitioner in Crl. O.Ps. 16533 and 16534 of 1999 is S. L. Kumar, who are accused Nos. 9 and 6 in CC No. 9595 and 9596 of 1998, respectively, on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, have filed these petitions for quashing the proceedings, insofar as they are concerned, in both the calendar cases.

(2.) THE petitioner, Ashok Malhotra, in his petitions has stated thus : He is a business executive based in Delhi and he is 8th accused in both the cases and no summons or copy of the complaints have been served on him. He was a non-executive and non-functional director on the Board of the first accused company between 1992 and 1994. He had not attended the day-to-day functions of the company, since he was only a non-executive director and he neither had knowledge, nor was he concerned with the day-to-day affairs of the company. He ceased to be a director of the company with effect from 19.8.1994 which is evident from the letter of the company, dated 20.8.1994. He cannot be made responsible for the affairs of the company as he was not a director at the relevant time. THE inclusion of his name in the complaints is mala fide. Hence, the proceedings in both the cases, insofar as he is concerned, are liable to be quashed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the petitioners were directors of the first accused company between 1992-1994 and petitioner Ashok Malhotra retired at the annual general meeting of the company on 19.8.1994 and did not seek re-election as evidenced by the letters filed in the typed set and, hence, his name also does not find a place in the Board of directors published in the fourth annual report of the company. THE learned counsel further contended that petitioner S. L. Kumar ceased to be a director of the first accused company from 9.11.1994 as evident from the letter of the company and the fourth annual report 1994-95 of the company. In support of his above contention, he further produced certified true copy of annual return of the first accused company made upto 30.9.1995 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Bombay. In that Certified copy, the names of Chairman and directors of the first accused company are mentioned.