Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Resigned Directors Not Liable for Post-Resignation Offenses in Cheque Dishonor Cases U/S 138 N.I. Act – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal ruling, the court has underscored that individuals who have resigned from directorship positions in companies cannot be held criminally liable for offenses occurring after their resignation. This landmark judgment sheds light on the interpretation of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in cases of cheque dishonor.

The case revolved around a petitioner who had served as a Director of the accused firms until August 20, 2013. The petitioner faced allegations of cheque dishonor related to a cheque issued on January 20, 2018. The pivotal issue was whether the petitioner could be held liable for offenses that took place after her resignation.

The court examined crucial documents, including Form-32 and annual returns, which clearly indicated the petitioner's resignation from the directorship. Notably, there was no substantive evidence provided to dispute the authenticity of these documents.

The judgment emphasized that "merely because the accused did not reply to the legal notice denying her Directorship, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner." The court held that liability could not be affixed upon the petitioner for events occurring after her resignation as Director.

Consequently, the court quashed the complaint, orders of summoning, and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner alone. However, proceedings would continue against other accused parties, including the Company.

This judgment offers clarity on the issue of vicarious liability for directors who have resigned from their positions, setting a significant legal precedent. It reaffirms the principle that individuals who have severed their ties with a company cannot be held criminally responsible for the company's actions post-resignation.

Legal experts have hailed this judgment as a crucial step in safeguarding the rights and legal standing of former directors, protecting them from unwarranted criminal proceedings based on post-resignation activities of the company.

Date of Decision: 26 September 2023

BHUPINDER KAUR vs M/S SOHAN LAL MOHAN LAL AND ANR 

Latest Legal News