Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SUJANA
Srinubabu Gedela – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's analysis and observations (Para 7 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 26 , 28) |
| 3. arguments presented by the petitioners (Para 8 , 11 , 15 , 25 , 27) |
| 4. legal principles regarding liability under ni act (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 19 , 22) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of the petition (Para 29) |
ORDER :
K. SUJANA, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.NI.No.8105 of 2022 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’).
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, stating that accused No.1 is a Company i.e., M/s. Omics International Company, accused No.2 is the Ex-Managing Director and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the Dire
Directors of a company can be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if they were in charge of the company's affairs at the time of the offense.
Liability of directors under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on their active role and responsibility for the company's business conduct, not merely their directorship.
The essential requirements for a valid complaint under Section 138 NI Act, including the demand notice to the drawer of the cheque and the arraignment of the company as the accused when the cheque is....
An individual in a company cannot be vicariously liable for criminal offenses under the NI Act unless they are responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offense.
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 are necessary to establish the liability of a Director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; mere designation is insufficient.
Sufficient averments in a complaint against a director fulfill requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act for vicarious liability. Failure to respond to statutory notices under Section 138 infers liab....
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
