Notice on MD/Director in Alleged Economic Offence of Company: Telangana HC directs Company to take Further Steps [Read Order]

Mr. Kishore Kumar Ganjil , the petitioner prayed to ssue a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus duly declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in issuing the impugned notice dated 09/09/2025 under Sections. 94 and 179 OF BNSS, 2023 relating to Crime No.63 of 2025 on the file of Cyberabad EOW P.S., on a complaint lodged by Respondent No.4 dated 04/09/2025 calling upon the petitioner herein to produce the documents mentioned therein as without jurisdiction, contrary to the provision of law and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Tax Planning For Trusts and cooperation Societies - Click Here

Airis Pharma Private Limited ( 'the Company') was incorporated in August, 2013 with the object of pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing. The petitioner submits that he is the former Managing Director/ Authorized Representative of the said Company and a notice was issued on 09.09.2025 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad under Sections 94 and 179 of BNSS, 2023 calling upon to produce documents in connection with criminal complaint involving fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust, theft and criminal conspiracy.

The notice was been given to the said Company through the Managing Director/ Authorized Representative to its registered office situated at Plot Nos.64 and 65, Aleap Industrial Estate, Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said notice issued under sections 94 and 179 of BNSS is not proper when the petitioner is already an accused in the F.I.R. As such, the petitioner is not obligated to furnish the documents as mentioned in the said notice. It is further submitted that the contents of the notice and documents mentioned therein would amounts to shifting of the entire company records to the respondent No.3 office which is impermissible in law.

Per contra, Government Pleader appearing for Home submitted that notice was issued in the name of the company and in F.I.R.No.63 of 2025 dated 04.()9.2025, the petitioner name is arrayed as accused as such, the notice is only given for the purpose of summoning the records of the company. Government Pleader has drawn the attention of this Court to the notice dated 09.09.2025, and submitted that it is not issued to the petitioner in his personal capacity but it was issued to the company and the company has to respond to the said notice.

The senior counsel for the petitioner would submitted that the petitioner is the Managing Director holding 58.52% majority share holder and the respondent No.4 prevailed upon to see that the complaint is registered to settle the scores in a matter which was already filed by respondent No.4 against the petitioner and others before NCLT, Hyderabad bench at Hyderabad under Sections 241,242, 213 & Section 119 of Companies Act, 2013 read with Rules 11,23 & 43 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 vide Company Petition No.30/241 of 2025.

It is further submitted that there are disputes between the Directors and shareholders of the Company, which has given the colour of a criminal case and that there is breach of trust, cheating and misappropriation of funds in relation to company affairs and as per the resolution passed at the meeting of Board of Directors on 06.07.2020, the petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of the company for a period of 5 years with effect from 06.07.2020 on certain terms and there are disputes regarding investments, management and control of the company which are governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and are subject to adjudication before the NCLT and the impugned notice dated 09.09.2025 was served on the petitioner being the Ex-Managing Director.

How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here

Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner has control over the affairs of the company and is obligated to respond to the Notice. There are disputes with respect to the affairs of the management and control of the company between the petitioner and the Directors. On a perusal Of the notice dated 09.09.2025, it is noticed that the said notice has been issued to the Company and that the petitioner was the Ex-Managing Director of the said Company. Admittedly, the petitioner is a former Managing Director and it is for the Company to respondent to the said notice.

The Government Pleader for Home submitted that the impugned notice has been already served on the Human Resources Manager of the said Company and he has accepted the same and it is for the company to take appropriate steps as available under law.

The single bench of Justice N.V.Shravan Kumar viewed that since the said notice has already been received by the Human Resource Manager of the Company and that they would take appropriate action, no mandamus can be issued at this juncture. It is for the said company to work out its remedies as available under law.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates