Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN
Anitha Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Usha Tibrewala – Respondent
ORDER :
(G. Jayachandran, J.)
The petitioner herein is the third accused in C.C.No.2111 of 2021 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.II, Fast Track Court, Allikulam, Chennai.
2. The private complaint is in respect of dishonour of two cheques drawn from the account maintained by M/s HNS Chits Pvt Ltd, Chennai at Yes Bank, Parrys Corner, Chennai. The Company is the First Accused) and its two Directors are the second and third accused. The Complaint states that the first accused Chit Fund Company run by the second and third accused had collected totally a sum of Rs.54,19,500/-between January 2018 and 16/10//2018 towards chit subscription from the complainant. After repeated demand two cheques for: (1) Rs.15,80,000/-, dated 30/11/2020 and (2) Rs.15,00,000/-, dated 30/11/2020; signed and issued by the second accused returned without fund. For the statutory notice issued by the complainant, the 2nd and 3rd accused replied making unsustainable allegations. Hence, the Company and its two Directors being incharge of the day to day affairs of the first accused company are liable for prosecution under Section 138 r/w 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
3. The petition to quash th
For vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, specific averments regarding a director's involvement in company affairs are essential; mere directorship is insufficient.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of specific allegations in the complaint reflecting the role of the accused to establish vicarious liability under Section 141 of ....
A complaint under Section 138 must contain specific averments to establish vicarious liability; mere title or position is insufficient for liability. Absence of allegations against an accused leads t....
Point of Law : Where there is not even an averment against the Managing Director or joint Managing Director of the Company therein. [Para 11]
A Company Secretary, who is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and is not responsible for the conduct of its business, cannot be held criminally liable for a dishonored cheque issu....
Directors cannot be held vicariously liable for a company's dishonoured cheque without specific allegations of their involvement in the company's operations, as required under Section 141 of the N.I.....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific averments and unimpeachable evidence to establish vicarious liability of directors in cases of cheque bounce under Sec....
Specific averments regarding a director's role and responsibility are essential for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the N.I. Act; mere designation is insufficient.
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
