Skip to main content

Acceptance Of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Not A Ground To Quash Case Under Sec 138 NI Act

In Crl OP(MD)No.34996 of 2019, Mr.Ajay Kumar Bishnoi, Former Managing Director M/s.Tecpro Systems Ltd., vs M/s.Tap Engineering, application was filed before the Madras High Court to quash the application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the Fast Track Court -IV Magistrate as illegal, invalid and non est in the eyes of law and consequently direct the respondent/complainant to pursue their remedies as per the provision of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

In this matter, eight cheques were issued by the applicant which bounced and on issued with a demand notice by the defendant, only partial payment was made. The defendant then filed complaint under under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was taken and summons were issued naming Tecpro Systems Limited was shown as the first accused and petitioner herein was shown as the second accused.

During the pendency of these complaints, Tecpro Systems Limited came under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process following which resolution plan was accepted which planned for a change of management. The defendant was recognised as one of the operational creditor.

The petitioner's contention is that in view of the acceptance of the resolution plan by the Tribunal and the change in management, the impugned prosecution against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is liable to be quashed since according to the petitioner the resolution plan clearly states that all the outstanding negotiable instruments issued by the company or by any persons/entities on behalf of the company prior to the insolvency commencement date including demand promissory notes, cheques and letters of credit, shall stand terminated and the liability of the company and its current employees under such instruments shall stand extinguished and all the legal proceedings relating thereto shall stand irrevocably and unconditionally abated. The petitioner claimed that he cannot defend himself or conduct the case before the trial Court as he does not have access to any of the company records. Further, the cheques in question were not issued in the personal individual capacity of the petitioner. In fact, the cheques were issued by the authorized signatory. Therefore, no penal liability can be fastened on the petitioner herein. He also contended that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a self contained enactment which has an overriding effect over other laws. Therefore, continuation of the impugned prosecution would only amount to an abuse of legal process. He, therefore, called upon this Court to quash the impugned proceedings.

The Madras High Court, referring to various judgments held that Section 233 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which protects action taken in good faith under the Code or the Rules or Regulations made thereunder employs the expression “no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding”. But, in Section 14 the expression “suits or proceedings” alone is found. The expression “prosecution” is conspicuously absent in Section 14. When the legislature consciously included the expression “prosecution” elsewhere in the Code and omits it in Section 14 of the Code, the court decided that the omission is deliberate and intentional. The legislature did not intend to bar criminal prosecution even though moratorium has been declared.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more