Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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