Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Rakesh Bhanot – Appellant
Versus
Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - The moratorium under IBC does not extend to criminal proceedings under NI Act Section 138/141. (!) (!) - Moratorium provisions (Sections 96 and 101) protect only civil/debt-related actions, not penal actions; criminal liability persists for individuals. (!) (!) - Proceedings under Section 138/141 NI Act can continue against individuals even if insolvency proceedings are pending or moratorium is in place for corporate debtors. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. Since the facts and issues involved in all these cases are common, they are clubbed together and disposed of, by this common judgment.
3. All these appeals are filed against the orders passed by different High Courts, which dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19731[For short, “Cr.P.C”] and thereby affirmed the orders passed by the trial Court rejecting the applications filed for staying the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812[For short, “N.I. Act, 1881”], sine die till the conclusion of the proceedings initiated under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20163[For short, “IBC”], before the National Company Law Tribunal. A writ petition has also been filed for declaration and direction that section 138 proceedings shall be deemed to be stayed during the operation of the moratorium period under section 96 IBC. The details of the cases are tabulated below:
| Case No. | Name of the parties | Order impugned before this Court | Order impugned before the High Court |
| SLP(Crl) No.6087 of 2023 | Rakesh Bhanot v. M/s. Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd |
| |
The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not protect individuals from criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour.
The court ruled that proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are penal and cannot be stayed by the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC, affirming the distinction between criminal and c....
The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not protect individuals who are directors or guarantors of a corporate debtor from criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments A....
The moratorium under the IBC does not protect directors from criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as these proceedings are distinct from civil recovery actions.
(1) Dishonour of cheque – Offence by company – By operation of provisions of IBC, criminal prosecution initiated against the natural persons under Section 138 read with 141 of NI Act read with Sectio....
A partner of a firm can file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if authorized, as they act as agents of the firm, and the moratorium under IBC does not protect directors ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under Sec. 138 of NI Act are covered by the term 'any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt' appearing in ....
Interim moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not absolve personal criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
