Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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