Injured Wife Is Sterling Witness — Her Identification Of Husband As Assailant Needs No Corroboration: Allahabad High Court Four Years in Custody, 359 Witnesses Pending, Trial Could Take Decades: Delhi HC Grants Bail to UAPA Accused Charged as "Hybrid Cadres" Prosecution's Fatal Mistake: Not Examining the Only Child Witness Who Saw the Accused — Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused Co-sharers Entitled To Same Land Compensation As Other Owners Even If No Reference Filed Under Section 18 Or 28-A: Punjab & Haryana HC PIL Filed To Settle Personal Scores Cannot Hide Behind Public Interest: Rajasthan High Court Bars Petitioner From Filing Any PIL In Future Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Special NIA Court's Refusal To Discharge, Remedy Lies In Statutory Appeal: Allahabad High Court Rs. 57,000 Per Acre Award Inadequate for Fertile Commercial Land: AP High Court Enhances Compensation to Rs. 3.50 Lakh, Raises Tree Values Election Petition Must Plead Material Facts, Not Mere Allegations: Bombay High Court Rejects Challenge To Chandivali MLA’s Election Son Of Deceased Tenant Cannot Claim Statutory Protection Beyond 5 Years Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act: Calcutta High Court Daughter Cannot Claim Mewar Estate Through Intestacy Petition While Disputing Will: Delhi High Court Dismisses Padmaja Kumari Parmar's Petition in Mewar Royal Family Succession Battle Cabinet Cannot Spend First and Seek Sanction Later: Kerala High Court Halts ₹20 Crore ‘Nava Keralam’ Programme Incorporation Under the Companies Act Does Not Confer Immunity Against an Action in Passing Off: Madras HC POCSO | School Records Prevail Over Ossification Test For Age Determination Of Minor Victim: Madhya Pradesh High Court A Buyer Who Runs Away From the Tehsil Without Paying Cannot Later Sue to Register the Sale Deed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Encroacher Cannot Claim Forest Rights by Calling Himself a Traditional Dweller: Madras High Court LIC Agent Certified Cancer Patient's Health As 'Good' Without Meeting Him: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Termination Property Bought From Crime Proceeds Before PMLA Came Into Force Can Still Be Attached If Possessed After: Delhi High Court Overturns Single Judge Co-Employee Cannot Play Watchdog Over Colleague's Dismissal Order — Allahabad High Court Shuts the Door on Third-Party Service Appeals

IBC Moratorium Nullifies Vicarious Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act: Delhi High Court

08 January 2025 11:56 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Delhi High Court quashed proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against directors and authorized signatories of a corporate debtor undergoing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Court held that with the imposition of a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, directors and authorized signatories cease to have control over the corporate debtor’s accounts, absolving them of liability for cheque dishonor during CIRP.

The petitioners, a suspended director and an authorized signatory, challenged the summoning order issued under Section 138 NI Act for dishonor of two cheques amounting to ₹10,00,000 each. These cheques, issued in compliance with a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order, were dishonored after the debtor company entered CIRP on October 31, 2019. The dishonor occurred due to "Drawer Signature to operate account not received," a result of the IRP’s exclusive control over the corporate debtor’s accounts during CIRP.

The Court emphasized that the IBC moratorium under Section 14 bars the operation of the debtor’s accounts, vesting exclusive authority with the IRP. Quoting Govind Prasad Todi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023), it reiterated:

“Once CIRP begins, directors and authorized signatories are no longer ‘in charge of’ or ‘responsible for’ the corporate debtor’s affairs, precluding their vicarious liability under Section 138 NI Act.”

Additionally, the Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 138 NI Act were not satisfied, as the cheques were incapable of being encashed post-moratorium. The dishonor could not be attributed to the petitioners, as their authority over the accounts ceased with the commencement of CIRP.

The Court quashed the summoning order and all consequential proceedings, allowing the petitions. It held:

“The statutory framework of the IBC, including the moratorium under Section 14, nullifies the petitioners’ liability for cheque dishonor during CIRP.”

This judgment underscores the precedence of IBC provisions over penal statutes like the NI Act during insolvency, ensuring fair resolution for creditors while protecting corporate debtors from parallel liabilities.

Decision Date: December 17, 2024

Latest Legal News