Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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