Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Freedom of Speech Ends Where National Security Begins: Allahabad HC Rejects Neha Singh Rathore’s Anticipatory Bail Juvenile Cannot Be Jailed Even During Age Inquiry: Allahabad High Court Declares 8-Year Custody of Murder Accused Illegal Mere Passage of Time Is No Ground for Bail under Gangster Act: Allahabad High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea of Habitual Offender Judicial Discretion Permits Tailored Sentencing Even in Heinous Offences: Supreme Court Merely Three Generic Questions Asked Under Section 313 CrPC – This is Not Compliance, But a Mockery of Due Process: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Evade Responsibility by Calling Their Own Orders Ambiguous: Supreme Court Revives Contempt Plea in Land Acquisition Case Conviction Can Stand, But Sentence Must Serve Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Imprisonment in Grievous Hurt Case After Compromise Between Parties Explanation to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act Makes It Abundantly Clear That Pre-2005 Partitions Cannot Be Reopened: : Orissa High Court Dismisses Daughters’ Claim No Valid ‘Nikah’ Without Halala Compliance: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Maintenance Order Amid Dispute Over Muslim Woman’s Remarriage With Former Husband Custodial Beating Not Part of Official Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Police Officer’s Plea for Protection Under Section 197 CrPC Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute Adult Sons Can't Hide Behind Mother's Saree to Excuse Inaction: Orissa High Court Refuses to Condon Delay in Restoration Plea Judicial Service Exam Cannot Sustain on Legal Inaccuracy: Karnataka High Court Intervenes to Correct Legal Misinterpretation in Judicial Exam Answer Key POCSO Charges Fail Without Proof of Minority: Karnataka High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case

Nominee Directors Not Liable for Company Defaults - Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Former Employees

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today quashed the criminal proceedings against former employees of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation and Industrial Development Bank of India, charged under Section 58A(10) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court's decision, pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, has set a significant precedent regarding the liability of nominee directors in corporate legal disputes.

The petitioners, A.K. Sud and others, and B. Das Gupta, were implicated in a case involving the failure of Euro Cotspin Limited to repay deposits, despite orders from the Company Law Board. Justice Brar, in his observation, stated, "Nominee Director cannot be held liable for any default made by the Company as they are not responsible for day to day business of the Company." This key legal point underlines the limited role and responsibility of nominee directors, shifting the focus away from them in corporate compliance issues.

The crux of the matter was the non-compliance of Euro Cotspin Limited in repaying the deposits as directed by the Company Law Board. The petitioners, serving as nominee directors, argued their non-involvement in the company’s day-to-day affairs and decisions. They highlighted their role as merely representational, based on their official positions in their respective financial institutions.

The court referenced the case of Lok Manya Negi Vs. Registrar of Company Punjab, HP and Chandigarh, where similar proceedings were quashed, suggesting a need for parity in judicial decisions. Furthermore, the judgment cited the case of S.K. Sharma Vs. Registrar of Companies, which established that nominee directors are not liable for a company's operational defaults.

This judgment has significant implications for the roles and responsibilities of nominee directors in corporate governance. It clarifies the extent of their liability and protects them under Section 41-A of the State Financial Corporation Act in actions taken in good faith. This decision is expected to have a far-reaching impact on corporate legal practices and the interpretation of corporate governance norms.

Date of Decision: 09.01.2024

A.K. SUD AND OTHERS.  VS REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES PUNJAB. 

 

Latest Legal News