NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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