Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra has reiterated that a Director cannot get a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint against him quashed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, merely on the ground that apart from the basic averment no particulars are given in the complaint about his role In this case, the High Court had quashed the summons issued to director and other officials of a company, which had issued cheques to the bank which were dishonoured, singularly on the ground that there are no allegations against them connecting them with the affairs of the Company. The Bank preferred the appeal before Apex court. Apex Court referred to Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Anu Mehta and Ors. wherein it was held “ When in view of the basic averment process is issued the complaint must proceed against the Directors. But, if any Director wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that only ...

The Bombay High Court has held that relevant period for deciding the vicarious liability of the Director for the act committed by the Company is not only when the cheque was dishonoured, but also when the disputed transaction was entered into, and from time to time thereafter like at the time of issuance of the cheque in question, presentation of said cheque in Bank etc. Justice Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi made this observation in Mrs. Lata Pramod Dave vs. M/s. Mode Export Private Limited, wherein the petitioner had approached the High Court to quash the process under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act issued against her on the ground that, on the date when the cheque in question was presented to the Bank and came to be dishonoured, she was no more the Director of the Company as she has already resigned from the Company. According to Petitioner, she has tendered her resignation on 1st January 2013 and it was received by the Company on the same date. The resignation date seriously d...

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania developed interpretation of provisions of the Tort law providing more guarantees to the employee injured at work in case when company (the employer) went bankrupt and extended regulations of company director liability. The Supreme Court found that in case of indirect liability (company is liable for the damages caused by its employees) and liquidation of such Company due to bankruptcy the damage incurred to injured person shall not be left because of Company bankruptcy. An employee who was injured at work shall have right to direct his request of damage compensation to the person who caused the damage. In this particular case it is the director of the Company. This interpretation is based on Principles of European Tort Law providing for liability for auxiliaries. As to the merits of the case, the employee was injured at work and the director of the Company was found guilty for the criminal offence related to labor safety and failure to en...

Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6134-6135 of 2005] WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2006 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6252 of 2005] S.B. SINHA, J : Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr vs R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya on 13 September, 2006 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that where a cheque drawn by a person is returned by the bank unpaid on the grounds specified therein, the person who had drawn the said cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence thereunder. Section 139 provides for a presumption in favour of a holder of a negotiable instrument. Section 141 of the Act provides for offences by a company. Sub-section (1) of Section 141 reads as under: "141. Offences by companies.(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every 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, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2094 of 2007] Aneeta Hada ...Appellant Versus M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 842 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2117 of 2007] JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J : Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours ... on 8 May, 2008 2. Appellant is said to be an authorised signatory of M/s. Intel Travels Ltd (Company). The said Company as also the respondent company had business transactions. Appellant on behalf of the company issued a cheque dated 17.1.2001 for a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- in favour of respondent which was dishonoured. Respondent filed a complaint petition against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The Company which is a juristic person was not arrayed as an accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against her....