Offence u/s 138 of N I Act by the company

examination of the provisions relating to dishonour of cheques drawn by the company and to determine who are the persons who shall be responsible and can be made liable for an offence done by a company? Who is responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, and who could be said to be in-charge thereof? How does one identify such persons? Is it that a person by virtue of being a director, manager or secretary of a Company automatically becomes liable under this section? Is it necessary to have an averment in the complaint that at the time when this offence was committed, such a person was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company? Answer to the above questions by the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI

MANISH PARWANI VERSUS THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
Crl. M.C. No. 450/2010
Judgment delivered on 03rd May, 2010

HC verdict boost for consumer rights

In a boost to protection of consumer rights, the Bombay High Court last week observed that penalty — imprisonment or fine — for non-compliance with the consumer forum’s directive was applicable to interim orders and not just final orders. ‘‘In matters pertaining to consumer protection, the law must be interpreted in favour of the consumer,’’ said the court. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act states that any person or trader who fails to comply with ‘‘any order’’ given by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, will be imprisoned for a term not less than a month or fined up to Rs 2,000. Stating that Section 27 makes no distinction between an interim and the final order, a division bench of Justice Ferdino I Rebello and Justice J H Bhatia said, ‘‘To give greater protection to the consumer and to make the execution of orders more effective and less expensive, which is the object of the Act, and to provide for speedy justice, we see no reason why the provisions contained in Section 27 should be restricted only to final orders.’’ WRIT PETITION NO.1035 OF 2009 R.B. Upadhyay v/s State Commission for Consumer and Disputes, AdministrativeVodafone Essar Ltd source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/