Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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     

Similar News