CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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