District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

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