Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Sec 148 NI Act | Joint Liability To Pay a Debt Is Not Sufficient To Make a Person Vicariously Liable: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D-8th August, 2022

High Court held in recent case that A common obligation to pay a debt will not be enough to subject a person to vicariously liability under Section 148 N.I. Act. Without specific charges in the complaint that show the role of the accused, the Justice Asha Menon bench ruled that "the persons identified cannot be summoned in a case under Section 138 read with 141 N.I Act."

In this matter, Pantel Technologies Pvt. Limited and its directors, the petitioners Javahar Lal and Vivek Prakash, were the targets of complaints made by the respondents under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act. After reviewing the evidence on file, the learned Trial Court took the case under consideration and issued summonses. The petitions have been submitted to have the proceedings before the learned MM involving the petitioner, who is listed as accused No. 2 in the accusations, dismissed.

High Court reaffirmed that it is required to clearly allege in a complaint under Section 141 that the accused was in charge of and accountable for the operation of the business at the time the offence was committed.

The High Court stated that careful adherence to legislative criteria was required since Section 141 of the N.I. Act produces a legal fiction that creates vicarious liability. A person will not be held vicariously accountable under Section 148 N.I. Act just because they share responsibility for paying a debt.

The court's ruling noted that even if all of the complaints' allegations were true, the records attached to them "ex facie establish that the petitioner, despite being a director of the accused company, was not in charge of or accountable for the management of its operations." As a result, Section 141 N.I. Act lacks a necessary component upon which vicarious liability could be imposed on the petitioner.

Javahar Lal

vs

Ovt India Pvt. Limited & Anr.

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AMN08082022CRLMM12552020_162647.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News