Back
DHARMESH SHARMA
Re-m/s Catmoss Retail Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
CO.APPL. 58/2024 (application moved on behalf of Ex- Management seeking stay on proceedings)
1. This application is moved on behalf of the applicant Mr. Ashwani Chawla, Ex-Management/Director under Sections 446 and 447 of the Companies Act, 1956 [The Act] seeking stay of the proceedings initiated against the company under liquidation as well as the applicant in various Courts exercising criminal jurisdiction in Delhi under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 [NI Act].
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is stated that the company in question has been ordered to be wound up vide order dated 28.02.2013 and a Provisional Liquidator has been ordered to take over the assets and other records of the company (in liquidation) vide order dated 27.03.2014 passed by this Court.
3. The grievance of the applicant/Ex-Management is that certain complaints have been instituted under Section 138 of the NI Act against the company as well as directors, which cannot be allowed to continue in view of Sections 446 and 447 of the Act.
4. Advance notice of the present application has not been served upon the Official Liquidator. However, a copy of the same is ordered t
The winding up of a company does not absolve the personal liability of its directors for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and such criminal proceedings can continue despi....
(1) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138/141 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 14 – Dishonour of cheque – Moratorium – Section 138/141 proceeding against a corporate debtor i....
Directors can only be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if specific averments are made in the complaint regarding their responsibility for the company's cond....
The imposition of moratorium under Sec. 14 of the I.B. Code applies to the corporate debtor, while the natural persons mentioned in Sec. 141 of the N.I. Act continue to be statutorily liable.
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.
IBC moratorium applies solely to corporate debtor, not shielding directors from Section 138 NI Act criminal proceedings, which continue independently despite company liquidation.
The legal framework applied by the court focused on the consequences of winding up of a company and the liability of the directors in case of default, emphasizing the need to consider the facts of th....
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
