Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Insolvency Proceedings Do Not Extinguish Criminal Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: MP High Court Denies Relief from Deposit Condition for Sentence Suspension

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia upholds Rs. 13,73,890/- deposit condition, rejecting the argument of interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC.

In a significant judgment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has denied an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the condition requiring the deposit of Rs. 13,73,890/- for the suspension of the sentence during the pendency of an appeal. The court emphasized that insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) do not extend to criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

Insolvency Proceedings and Criminal Liability: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed that the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not apply to criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited, stating, “The nature of proceedings under the two Acts is quite different and would not intercede each other. Criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are penal in character and not merely compensatory.”

Application of Judicial Precedents: The applicant’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited to argue that the interim moratorium should prevent the enforcement of the deposit condition. However, Justice Ahluwalia clarified that this judgment does not exempt individuals from personal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. “Merely because of the initiation of proceedings under the IBC, the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability,” the court stated.

The court extensively discussed the principles of evaluating the impact of insolvency proceedings on criminal liability. It reiterated that the penal nature of Section 138 NI Act proceedings serves to uphold the integrity of financial transactions and does not merely seek compensation. “Proceedings under Section 138 are not recovery proceedings. They are penal in character, aiming to punish the default in honoring a negotiable instrument,” the judgment emphasized.

Justice Ahluwalia noted, “The interim moratorium under the IBC does not extend to criminal proceedings, as these are penal in nature and distinct from civil recovery proceedings.” He further remarked, “The punitive element in Section 138 of the NI Act is essential to enforce the credibility of financial transactions and trade.”

The High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s stance that insolvency proceedings under the IBC do not provide immunity from criminal liability under the NI Act. By upholding the condition to deposit Rs. 13,73,890/- for the suspension of the sentence, the judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings serve a distinct and essential role in maintaining the integrity of financial transactions. This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on similar cases, clarifying the boundaries between insolvency proceedings and criminal liability.

Date of Decision: 21st May 2024

Anurodh Mittal vs. Rehat Trading Company & State of Madhya Pradesh

Similar News