Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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