Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
ANU MALHOTRA
Sheela Abhay Lodha – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner resigned prior to the alleged offence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of loans and dishonoured cheques. (Para 3 , 7 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. argument concerning resignation and knowledge. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial conclusions on the resignation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. legal implications of resignation. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. petition allowed, complaints dismissed. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J. The petitioner of both CRL.M.C. 5213/2019 and CRL.M.C. 5219/2019 is Ms. Sheela Abhay Lodha, the former Managing Director of Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., who resigned therefrom on 24.11.2010.
2. In as much as, vide the petitions CRL.M.C. 5213/2019 and CRL.M.C. 5219/2019, the petitioner herein has assailed the very same impugned order dated 07.06.2017 of the Court of the learned MM-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No.3453/1/11 renumbered as CC No.1498/1/15 with new No.54000/16 and CC No.3452/1/11 renumbered as CC No.1501/1/15 with new No.54082-16, vide which common order, she was summoned having been arrayed as respondent No.2 to the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Sections 141 and 142 thereof, and hav
A former director is not liable for dishonored cheques issued after their resignation, protecting them from criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on the role played by a person in the affairs of the company at the time of the offence, not just on designation.
Directors who had resigned prior to the issuance of a dishonored cheque cannot be held liable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and specific averments are required to esta....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the role of each accused in the commission of the offence can only be determined during the trial and cannot be examined in detail by the cour....
The judgment emphasized the principles of vicarious liability under Section 141 of the NI Act and the need for material to substantiate contentions regarding non-involvement in the offense.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the timing of a director's resignation from a company and their involvement in the company's affairs, especially in the context of dishonored ....
The court emphasized that the complainant's specific averments in the complaint fulfilled the requirements of Section 141, and the petitioners failed to provide unimpeachable material to show their n....
Directors who have resigned cannot be held liable for cheques issued after their resignation unless specific allegations of responsibility are made.
A director cannot be held vicariously liable for a company's actions after resignation unless specific allegations of involvement are made in the complaint.
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
