Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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