Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court 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 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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"]

Latest Legal News