● Mr. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, vs V.K.

Chaturvedi on 15 October, 2013

“22. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, all other Directors
of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, were required to be
impleaded as a party to the Consumer Complaint, under Section 12 of the Act or not. In
our considered opinion, it was not necessary, on the part of the complainant, to implead
all the Directors of the Company, in their individual capacity, in the Consumer
Complaint, as a party. It was the Company, which was impleaded as a party, through Mr.
Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Managing Director/Director. As stated above, the Company is
to act through the Managing Director/Directors of the same, and, as and when, an order is
passed against the Company, the Managing Director/Director, through which that
Company was impleaded, could not say that he was not liable, in the absence of other
Directors.”

● Aarur Tamilnadan vs Mr.S.Shankar

“19...The manner in which D.W.1 has been cross-examined by the counsel for the
plaintiff would show that the plaintiff was very much aware of the fact that Sun TV
Network Limited, which is the actual producer has not been made a party to the suit and
yet he chose to proceed with the trial and after completion of trial, he has now come up
with this application for impleading.

23…Once the Company, a juristic person, which is the producer of the movie is
impleaded in the suit, I do not think that the impleading of the Managing Director of
the Company in his individual capacity is necessary.”

● Prahlad Lal Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan1

Held, office bearers and incharge to conduct business can be prosecuted for contravention
without impleading Society.
“6. My answer to the question posed in the judgment of brother Farooq Hasan, J. is that
without impleading the company which term includes a firm or association of individuals
like the co-operative society, the office bearers of the society who are incharge of and
responsible to the conduct of its business can be prosecuted in case conditions under
clauses (1) or (2) of Section 10 of the Act are satisfied.”

● Om Prakash Tewari vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 19 August, 1988 2

“It is significant that one of the very necessary principle in all these cases for impleading
a party is that only such parties should be impleaded whose presence are necessary to
settle all the questions involved in the suit.”

1 1986 (1) WLN 319

2 AIR2008SC2357
 ● Paresh P.Rajda vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr 3
“5….The question notes that the managing director or joint managing director would be
admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of
its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under
Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as managing director or joint
managing director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of
business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141.”

● Dr. Sandeep Jain v. Smt. Kaushaliya Devi & Others

Learned trial court is found to have relied upon the judgment rendered in AIR 1989 Delhi
274 and observed that the Insurance Company was neither necessary party nor proper
party in the suit as no relief was sought for against it.

● Praveen Kumar Bhatia vs M. Ghosh And Ors. on 6 January, 1989 4

“(4) It is pertinent to mention that earlier an application has been moved by defendant I to
the similar effect but that application was dismissed by the order dated Feb., 10, 1987 by
A.B. Saharya, J. with the finding that as no relief has been claimed against the insurance
company and also the presence Of the insurance company is not required for a proper or
effective determination of matters in controversy between the plaintiff and the
defendants, it is not necessary to implead the insurance company as the party in the suit.”

● N.K. Wahi vs. Shekhar Singh & Ors.,5

“7. This provision clearly shows that so far as the companies are concerned if any offence
is committed by it then every person who is a Director or employee of the company is not
liable. Only such person would be held liable if at the time when offence is committed he
was in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the
company as well as the company. Merely being a Director of the company in the absence
of above factors will not make him liable.
8. To launch a prosecution, therefore, against the alleged Directors there must be a
specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction. There
should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are in-charge and
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The description should be
clear. It is true that precise words from the provisions of the Act need not be reproduced
and the court can always come to a conclusion in facts of each case. But still, in the
absence of any averment or specific evidence the net result would be that complaint
would not be entertainable.”

3 (2007) 9 SCC 481

4 AIR 1989 Delhi 274
5 AIR 1989 All 43