Supreme Court: Brief Service Breaks Do Not Bar Ad Hoc Employees From Regularisation  ||  SC: Arbitral Awards May Be Challenged By Legal Representatives Only U/S 34, Not Via Article 227  ||  SC Stressed Caution in Uniformed Service Appointments and Restored Dismissal of an Unfit Constable  ||  Supreme Court: Higher Qualifications Cannot Replace the Required Minimum Experience Criteria  ||  Delhi High Court: Bank's Guard Post Involves Handling Arms, Strict Background Disclosure is Essential  ||  Delhi High Court: CARA Must Obtain Foreign Clearances Before Issuing NOC For Inter-Country Adoption  ||  Punjab & Haryana HC: Grounds of Arrest Need Not Be Reissued For a Second Arrest in the Same FIR  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Valid Caste Certificate Required To Prove SC/ST Act Offences; Oral Claim Not Enough  ||  Supreme Court Directs Preventive Detention to Curb Illegal Mining in Chambal Sanctuary  ||  SC: Courts Must Frame Points For Determination and Give Reasoned Judgments in Ex Parte Cases    

Siby Thomas Vs. Somany Ceramics Ltd. - (Supreme Court) (10 Oct 2023)

Vicarious liability would be attracted only when the ingredients of Section 141(1) of the NI Act, are satisfied

MANU/SC/1117/2023

Banking

Present Appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court, as per the impugned order, the High Court declined to quash the complaint qua the Appellant in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.PC').

Thus, in the light of the dictum laid down in Ashok Shewakramaniand Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., it is evident that a vicarious liability would be attracted only when the ingredients of Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), are satisfied. It would also reveal that merely because somebody is managing the affairs of the company, per se, he would not become in charge of the conduct of the business of the company or the person responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.

A bare perusal of Section 141(1) of the NI Act, would reveal 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, as well as the company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.

The averments in the complaint filed by the Respondent are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements Under Section 141(1) of the NI Act. Since the averments in the complaint are insufficient to attract the provisions Under Section 141(1) of the NI Act, to create vicarious liability upon the Appellant, he is entitled to succeed in this appeal. The Appellant has made out a case for quashing the criminal complaint in relation to him, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal stands allowed.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   VICARIOUS LIABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved