Skip to main content

Directors can be held liable for dishonour of cheque, rules SC

The Supreme Court has said that all directors involved in the day-to-day running of a company can be made liable for a bounced cheque, but not one who resigned before the cheque was issued. The top court said this while dealing with a case filed by a private company that had lent money to another.

Gunmala Sales Pvt Ltd had filed cheque-bouncing cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act against Navkar Infra Projects Pvt Ltd and four of its directors. The Calcutta High Court quashed proceedings initiated by a magistrate on grounds that the complaint was based on a mere assertion that the directors were responsible for the day-to-day business of the accused company when the offence was committed.

The high court reasoned that the complainant had in this case not clearly stated what part was played by each director and how they were responsible for the finances of the company and the issuing of cheques.

The complainant then approached the apex court which remitted the issue back to the HC to decide afresh within six months. The court, however, clarified the law and directed that the directors should normally face prosecution if there is no incontrovertible evidence to show their non-involvement such as long illness, resignation, etc. The complainant only has to make a specific averment in the complaint that a person is in charge of and is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company to maintain it, said a top court bench comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and NV Ramana.

The complainant does not have to elaborate on the role played by each of the directors in the transaction. "The individual role of a director is exclusively in the realm of internal management of a company and at the initial stage of a complaint, it would be unreasonable to expect a complainant to elaborate the specific role played by a director in the transactions," the bench said.

Vicarious liability is contemplated in the Negotiable Instruments Act to ensure greater transparency in commercial transactions, the court said. This object has to be kept in mind while considering individual cases and hardship arising out of a particular case cannot be the basis for directors to try to wriggle out of prosecution, the court said.

A case can only be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a high court if a director is wrongly arraigned, the Supreme Court said. In cheque-bouncing cases, the court said managing directors in charge of company affairs, directors or officers who sign cheques can be arraigned as accused. Any other director can also be made liable if the person was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of business. Other officers of a company can be made liable in such a case if a specific role by way of consent, connivance or negligence is alleged against them.

Article referred: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/directors-can-be-held-liable-for-dishonour-of-cheque-rules-sc/articleshow/44894320.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more