Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation This Is Not a Case of Greed Simplicitor but a Celebration of Fraud: Karnataka High Court Grants Specific Performance, Slams Vendor for Violating Court Orders

Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Quashing of Complaints under NI Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India provided crucial insights into the vicarious liability of directors in cases involving the quashing of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The decision, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol on August 3, 2023, emphasizes the significance of complying with the requirements of Section 141(1) of the NI Act and the distinction between being "in charge of" and "responsible to" the company for conducting its business.

The apex court underscored that vicarious liability is attracted when the necessary averments reflect that a director is not only managing the company's affairs but is also truly responsible for the conduct of its business. The judgment, while referencing specific sections and acts, further clarified that mere involvement in day-to-day operations does not necessarily establish the level of responsibility required by law.

Justice Abhay S. Oka, in his observations, noted, "Sub-section 1 of Section 141 reads thus: 'If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.' The phrases 'in charge of' and 'responsible to' cannot be read disjunctively and the same ought to be read conjunctively in view of the use of the word 'and' in between."

The Court's ruling has significant implications for cases involving directors' liability under the NI Act. It sets a clear precedent for the legal standard that must be met in complaints, highlighting the importance of proper averments in establishing vicarious liability. The judgment also addresses the impact of non-compliance with procedural requirements such as proper service of notice of demand before filing a complaint.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the complaints against the directors, and reiterated the necessity of adhering to the precise legal standard laid out in the statute. The decision provides valuable guidance for legal practitioners, businesses, and individuals navigating issues related to vicarious liability in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

 Date of Decision: August 03, 2023 

ASHOK SHEWAKRAMANI & ORS. vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 

   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/03-August-2023_ashok-shewakramani-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh.pdf"]

Similar News