Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Section 138 N.I. Act: Office Bearers May Change, But the Company Remains: Dismisses Petitions: Karnataka High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High court dismissed petitions from the directors and office bearers of a Company, asserting their continuous legal obligations in financial matters despite management changes. The court explicitly stated, "office bearers may come and go, the company remains," emphasizing the ongoing responsibility of the Company and its directors for their financial commitments under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

The case revolved around a loan initially taken by the Company from a Bank, guaranteed by its then Chairman, and renewed by the new set of directors. The Company defaulted on its loan, leading the Bank to take legal action, including issuing a notice after the Company's account was declared a non-performing asset.

High Court observed that "the accused cannot project themselves to be ignorant of this fact," highlighting that a cheque of Rs. 90 crores had been issued by the then Chairman on behalf of the Company as a security measure. [Para 9-10]

The Court also drew attention to the renewal of the credit facility, involving personal guarantees from four Directors. "This clause indicates that four Directors including accused No.2 stood as personal guarantors for Rs.65/- crores. It is only then the loan/credit facility is renewed," stated the Court. [Para 11, 13]

The judgment also cited the Apex Court’s position on the drawer's liability of a cheque, including cheques issued as a security measure. "A drawer who signs the cheque and hands it over to the payee is presumed to be liable, unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut the presumption," the Apex Court noted, according to Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [Para 15]

The High Court concluded by dismissing the criminal petitions and clarified that the observations made are solely for the purpose of consideration under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. [Para 16]

With this landmark judgment, the Court has underlined that a change in corporate leadership does not absolve the Company or its Directors of their financial liabilities.

Date of Decision: 06 OCTOBER, 2023

SRI RAJIV   Versus  STATE BANK OF INDIA     

Latest Legal News