Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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