MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Gujarat High Court Clarifies Roles of Additional Directors in Cheque Dishonor Cases: No Automatic Vicarious Liability Without Specific Averments

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Gujarat High Court has set a significant precedent regarding the liability of additional directors in cases of cheque dishonor under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Honourable Mr. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, while delivering the verdict, stated, “No automatic vicarious liability for additional directors without specific averments,” emphasizing the need for clear and specific allegations to establish the responsibility of directors in corporate offences.

The case, involving the quashing of FIR and court proceedings against additional directors of a company, was closely watched by legal experts and corporate entities. The High Court’s decision came as a relief to the applicants, who were the additional directors of the company accused of cheque dishonor.

Justice Bhatt’s observations provided clarity on the interpretation of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and their applicability to different types of directors. The judgment distinguished the roles and responsibilities of Managing Directors, Non-Executive Directors, Executive Directors, and Additional Directors, noting that the latter cannot be automatically held liable in cheque dishonor cases.

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings, citing a lack of specific averments against the applicants and the non-satisfaction of legal provisions as required under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Date of Decision: 08 November 2023

SANGEETHA GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR Versus  STATE OF GUJARAT

Latest Legal News