Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

CFO Signing Cheques Prima Facie Responsible for Company’s Actions, Must Prove Lack of Knowledge as Defense: Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition to Quash Complaint

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) against George Ninan, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Uniply Décor Ltd. The court, led by Justice Navin Chawla, underscored the CFO’s responsibility and accountability in corporate financial misconduct, emphasizing the adequacy of the allegations made in the complaint.

Background: The case originated from a complaint filed by Shubham Chemicals and Solvents against Uniply Décor Ltd. And its officers, including CFO George Ninan. The complaint alleged that Uniply Décor Ltd. Had issued a cheque for Rs. 11,50,000 to settle dues for industrial chemical supplies. However, the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. George Ninan, as the signatory of the cheque, sought to quash the complaint on the grounds that his liability was solely based on his role as a signatory.

Responsibility and Accountability of CFO: The court highlighted the key managerial role of the CFO within the company, stating, “The petitioner is the Chief Financial Officer and a key managerial personnel as defined under Section 2(51)(iv) of the Companies Act, 2013. The complaint asserts that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time.” The bench stressed that the role of CFO inherently involves oversight of financial transactions, including the issuance of cheques.

Legal Framework and Precedents: Justice Chawla drew upon the Supreme Court precedent in S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, which clarifies the liability of individuals who sign cheques on behalf of a company. The judgment stated, “A person who signs the cheque or has the authority to sign can be assumed to be responsible for the company’s business.” This principle was central to rejecting the petitioner’s argument that his liability was solely as a signatory without managerial responsibility.

Section 28 NI Act Argument Dismissed: Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on Section 28 of the NI Act, which pertains to an agent signing without indicating their role, the court found it inapplicable. Justice Chawla observed, “The complaint does not lay its foundation under Section 28 of the NI Act but instead makes the petitioner liable under Section 141, focusing on his responsibility and charge over the company’s business.”

Detailed Examination of Section 141 NI Act: The judgment meticulously analyzed Section 141 of the NI Act, which deems every person responsible for the company’s conduct of business liable for offences under Section 138. Justice Chawla reiterated, “The first part of Section 141 states that every person in charge of and responsible to the company for its business at the time of the offence is deemed guilty, shifting the burden to the accused to prove ignorance or due diligence.”

Justice Chawla noted, “A person in a managerial role, especially one who signs the cheque, can be prima facie assumed to be responsible for the company’s business. It is for the accused to prove lack of knowledge or due diligence as a defense.”

The dismissal of George Ninan’s petition by the Delhi High Court reinforces the judiciary’s stance on holding key managerial personnel accountable for financial misconduct within a company. This ruling underscores the importance of managerial roles in ensuring compliance with financial regulations and maintaining corporate integrity. By affirming the complaint’s validity under Section 141 of the NI Act, the judgment sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the legal responsibilities of company officers in financial transactions.

Date of Decision: 27th May 2024

George Ninan v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Similar News