Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint U/S 138 N.I. Act , Emphasizes Specific Averments in Corporate Liability Cases

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a criminal complaint while underlining the necessity of specific averments in cases involving corporate liability. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices C.T. RAVIKUMAR and Sanjay Kumar, dealt with an appeal challenging the refusal to quash a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

The appellant, accused No. 4 in the case, contended that the complaint against him should be quashed on two grounds: first, he had resigned from the partnership firm before the issuance of the cheque in question, and second, the complaint lacked the mandatory averments required under Section 141(1) of the NI Act.

The High Court had declined to quash the complaint, holding that the issue of the appellant's retirement from the partnership firm was a matter of evidence that needed to be proven at a later stage.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment delved into the intricacies of corporate liability under Section 141(1) of the NI Act. The Court emphasized that specific averments were crucial to establish vicarious liability. It ruled that mere management of a company's affairs did not automatically render an individual responsible for its conduct.

In the judgment, the Court stated, "A bare perusal of Section 141(1) of the NI Act reveals that only that 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 shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence."

The judgment further clarified that the words "was in charge of" and "was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" should be read conjunctively.

Supreme Court found that the averments in the complaint were insufficient to establish the mandatory requirements under Section 141(1) of the NI Act. As a result, the appellant's appeal was allowed, and the criminal complaint against him was quashed.

The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of precise averments in cases involving corporate liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. This decision provides clarity on the requirements for establishing vicarious liability, thereby setting a precedent for future cases in this domain.

Date of Decision: October 10, 2023

Siby Thomas  vs M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd.

Latest Legal News