Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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