Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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