Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Arun Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1787 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1787 Tel
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2023

Telangana High Court
Arun Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.705, 706, 707, 1088, 1089, 1128, 1129 and 1185 of 2020

COMMON ORDER:

The only grievance of the petitioner in all these criminal

petitions is that the Company-A1 was under resolution

process/dissolved and by virtue of the Judgment rendered by the

Honourable Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam

Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited in

Crl.A.No.172 of 2023 dt.15.03.2023, when the company is in

the process of resolution, the erstwhile Director cannot represent

the Company.

2. The relevant paragraphs of Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam

Goenka's case reads as follows;

"50. It is equally true that once the corporate debtor comes under the resolution process, its erstwhile managing director(s) cannot continue to represent the company. Section 305(2) of the Cr.P.C. states that where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation.

Therefore, it is only the Resolution Professional who can represent the accused company during the pendency of the proceedings under IBC. After the proceedings are over, either the corporation entity may be dissolved or it can be taken over by a new management in which event the company will continue to exist. When a new

management takes over, it will have to make arrangements for representing the company. If the company is dissolved as a result of the resolution process, obviously proceedings against it will have to be terminated. But even then, its erstwhile directors may not be able to take advantage of the situation. This is because, this Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Limited (2012) 5 SCC 661, even while overruling its decision in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. Reported in (2000)1 SCC 1, as not laying down the correct law in so far as Anil Hada (supra) states that the director or any other officer can be prosecuted without impleadment of the company, proceeded to hold that the matter would stand on a different footing where there is some legal impediment as the doctrine of lex non cogit ad impossibilia gets attracted. It was specifically observed that the decision in Anil Hada (supra) is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. Considering the same, the ratio of the decision of this Court in Ajit Balse (supra) upon which strong reliance is placed on behalf of the appellant is of no avail.

52. Thus, where the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act had already commenced and during the pendency the plan is approved or the company gets dissolved, the directors and the other accused cannot escape from their liability by citing its dissolution. What is dissolved is only the company, not the personal penal liability of the accused covered under Section 141 of the NI Act. They will have to continue to face the prosecution in view of the law laid down in Aneeta Hada (supra). Where the company continues to remain even at the end of the resolution process, the only consequence is that the erstwhile directors can no longer represent it."

3. Further, it is held that it is the resolution professional who

can represent the accused company during the pendency of the

proceedings under IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016).

4. In view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Honourable

Supreme Court, the learned Magistrate is directed to strictly follow

the said observations of the Honourable Supreme Court.

5. Accordingly, all the criminal petitions are disposed off.

Needless to say, the name of the representative of the company as

arrayed by the complainant cannot be proceeded against during

the resolution process.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.04.2023 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.705, 706, 707, 1088, 1089, 1128, 1129 and 1185 of 2020

Dt.25.04.2023

tk

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Media

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter