NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved