Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

Gujarat High Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability in Cheque Dishonour Cases: “Not Every Director is Automatically Vicariously Liable”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that clarifies the nuances of vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Gujarat High Court, led by Honourable Mr. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, pronounced a judgment in the case of Sangeetha Gopalkrishnan Nair versus State of Gujarat. The Court made a pivotal observation, stating, “Not every director is automatically vicariously liable for offences by the company,” shedding light on the roles and responsibilities of directors in cases of cheque dishonour.

The decision, dated November 8, 2023, revolved around an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the process issued against applicants in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Court meticulously discussed the liability of additional directors, differentiating it from other directorial roles under the Companies Act. Justice Bhatt emphasized that the specific roles and responsibilities of individuals within a company are crucial in determining their liability, especially in cases of financial transactions and cheque dishonour.

In a landmark observation, the Court stated, “It is required that sufficient averments are made to show that the person who is alleged to be made vicariously liable, was in charge and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.” This statement underscores the importance of clear and specific allegations in legal proceedings involving corporate entities.

The judgment also highlighted the court’s power to interfere under Section 482 of the CrPC, signifying that such powers should be exercised sparingly and not in routine matters.

In this particular case, the Court quashed proceedings against the accused nos. 7 and 8, who were additional directors, due to the lack of specific averments against them. However, it allowed proceedings to continue against accused nos. 4 and 6, as there was no conclusive evidence absolving their involvement.

Date of Decision: 08 November 2023

SANGEETHA GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Similar News