No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

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,

Similar News