UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Specific averments in the complaint to establish the liability of a director is Mandatory U/S 141 N.I. Act: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the extent of liability that can be fastened upon former directors of a company for offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The apex court, in the case of Rajesh Viren Shah vs. Redington (India) Limited (2024 INSC 111), has set aside the judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, thereby quashing all criminal proceedings against the appellants, who were former directors of the respondent company.

The crucial legal question addressed by the court was whether a director, who has resigned and whose resignation is duly recorded in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, can be held liable for cheques issued by the company after their resignation.

The appellants, Rajesh Viren Shah and Sanjay Babulal Bhutada, were accused in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheques issued by the company after their resignation. Their resignations were officially recorded in the company’s records before the dates on which the cheques were drawn.

The court meticulously analyzed the statutory provisions, particularly Section 141 of the N.I. Act, and various precedents. It emphasized the need for specific averments in the complaint to establish the liability of a director under Section 141 of the Act. The bench highlighted that the primary responsibility lies with the complainant to make necessary averments and establish the accused’s active role at the time of the commission of the offence.

In examining the facts, the court found that the appellants had resigned before the issuance of the cheques and their resignations were duly recorded. There was no evidence to indicate their involvement or responsibility for the company’s affairs at the time the cheques were issued.

Based on these observations, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellants could not be held liable for the cheques issued after their resignation from the company. Consequently, all criminal proceedings against them were quashed.

 Decided on February 14, 2024.

Rajesh Viren Shah vs. Redington (India) Limited,

Latest Legal News