The Delhi High Court set aside the order passed by the Additional Session Judge to the extent extent that it directs issuance of summons to the petitioner, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi, for alleged fraud committed by BSL.

The key concern that emerges for consideration in this case is if it is possible to sue the petitioner for the alleged fraud perpetrated by BSL and/or the promoters solely on the basis that the petitioner was a BSL director and if there is any record of information suggesting that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the alleged crime.

The petitioner is being sued on the basis of the financial statements accepted during the meetings of the Board during which the petitioner was present.

The summons were issued as put on record against the petitioner . It was alleged that he was liable under Section 128, 129, 448 read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru, noted that there is no allegation that, except in 

his capacity as Nominee Director of PNB, the petitioner was involved in BSL 's affairs.

In such a position, no BSL executive work was allocated to him, but he was, merely expected to attend and participate in BSL board meetings.

The Trial Court issued a summons on the grounds that the petitioner has connived with the promoters. However, the bench observed that ‘neither the complaint submitted by Serious Fraud Investigation Officer nor the inquiry report submitted by SFIO contained any clear charges of complicity or bad faith against the petitioner’.


This news has been reported and prepared by Ms. Shrishti Tiwari and reviewed by Ms. Samreen Ahmed, Research Assistant, Research & Innovation Department, MyLawman.