Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

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