Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Signatory as Drawer and Liability - The authorized signatory of a company, even if they sign the cheque, is generally considered the drawer, and liability for bounced cheques under Section 138 NI Act primarily rests with the company (
Lyka Labs Limited VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes
). The court in Godfather Travels & Tours emphasized that the company, not individual signatories, bears the primary obligation, though authorized signatories can be held vicariously liable if they are in charge and responsible for the company's affairs ["Lyka Labs Limited VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes
"].Vicarious Liability of Directors and Signatories - Under Section 141 of the NI Act, persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business, such as managing directors or joint managing directors, can be held liable if specific averments are made in the complaint. Merely being a director is insufficient; the complaint must establish that the individual was in charge and responsible at the relevant time ["2023 0 Supreme(HP) 547"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1653"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1447"].
Requirements for Vicarious Liability - Courts have consistently held that for a director or signatory to be liable under Section 138, the complaint must specify that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct. Without such averments, liability cannot be fastened solely based on directorship or signing authority ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1653"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1541"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1447"].
Signatory's Liability in Absence of Signatory Status - If the person was not the signatory of the cheque and did not accept liability or conduct the transaction, they cannot be held liable under Section 138. The liability is limited to the drawer or signatory of the dishonoured cheque, not other directors or managers unless they are in charge and responsible ["2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2389"], ["2025 0 Supreme(HP) 90"].
Supreme Court Precedents - The Supreme Court has clarified that liability under Section 138 is primarily against the drawer of the cheque. For vicarious liability, specific allegations must establish that the individual was in charge and responsible for the company's conduct at the relevant time. Simply being a director or signatory does not automatically entail liability unless the complaint adequately alleges such responsibility ["2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1541"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1653"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
Individuals who sign the cheque and are in charge of the company's affairs at the time of the offence can be held liable under Section 138 NI Act, provided the complaint makes specific averments regarding their role and responsibility. Merely being a director or signatory does not automatically attract liability; the prosecution must establish their in-charge status and responsibility for the conduct leading to dishonour. Therefore, signatories can be held liable only if they are in charge and responsible for the company's conduct, supported by proper pleadings ["
Lyka Labs Limited VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes
"], ["2023 0 Supreme(HP) 547"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1653"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1447"].References:
Lyka Labs Limited VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes
In the world of business transactions, cheques remain a common payment method in India. However, when a cheque bounces due to insufficient funds or other reasons, it can trigger serious legal consequences under the (NI Act). A frequent question arises: Whether Signatory can be Held Liable in Ni Act? This post delves into the liability of signatories, drawing from judicial precedents and statutory provisions to provide clarity.
Note: This article offers general information based on legal principles and case law. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
criminalizes the issued for discharge of a . The provision aims to ensure trust in cheque-based transactions. But liability doesn't stop at the company or firm issuing the cheque—it often extends to individuals involved, particularly the signatory. 2021 3 Supreme 612
The has clarified that a signatory is generally presumed to be responsible for the company's affairs, making them potentially liable. However, this is subject to specific conditions under . 2006 0 Supreme(Ker) 618
A person who signs the cheque is typically held directly liable under Section 138. The rationale is straightforward: by signing, they represent the drawer and affirm the cheque's validity for a debt or liability.
Key conditions for prosecution include:- The cheque is drawn on an account maintained by the drawer.- It is issued for discharge of a debt or liability.- The cheque is returned unpaid by the bank due to insufficient funds or similar reasons. 2021 3 Supreme 612
If the signatory is not the drawer or the cheque isn't from their account, liability may not attach. 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1255
In , the held that a signatory can be held liable under if they were in charge of the company at the time the offence was committed. 2006 0 Supreme(Ker) 618
Section 141 extends liability to persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the offence. Crucially, this applies only if the company is also prosecuted. 2022 6 Supreme 740 2012 3 Supreme 416
The landmark case Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Ltd. reinforced: an cannot be held liable without the company being made an accused. 1940 0 Supreme(SC) 58 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 76
Merely being a director doesn't confer liability. The complainant must prove the individual's active role in the company's affairs. For instance:- A Company Secretary not involved in day-to-day operations was held not liable, as they were neither a director nor signatory. The court in a related case , citing Sunita Palita vs. M/s. Panchami Stone Quarry: only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the commission of an offence would be liable for criminal action. 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1105- Non-signatory directors escaped liability if not responsible at the time of issuance or dishonour. In one petition, a former director appointed briefly without knowledge was exonerated: A non-signatory director cannot be held liable under if not responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offence. 2025 0 Supreme(Chh) 187
Non-signatories, like or , are generally not liable. Specific averments in the complaint are essential to invoke jurisdiction.
In a case under review, the court quashed a complaint due to incomplete averments: the necessary averments were incomplete in one of the complaints, leading to its quashing. It emphasized principles: in case of a managing director / partner / signing authority of a firm, it can be presumed under given circumstances that they were actively involved... However, in case of other officers... it is necessary to aver in the complaint, their position and duties. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 315
Another ruling distinguished partners: Whether there is difference between and active partners for determining their liability U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act? The court held that specific averments and proof beyond reasonable doubt are required, dismissing an appeal where guilt wasn't established. 2015 0 Supreme(P&H) 767
Directors remaining in day-to-day operations faced summons despite not signing: Petitioners, as directors, were held liable under Section 141 for the company's offence despite not being signatories. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3257
For courts to proceed:- Clearly state the accused's role and responsibility.- Link them to the offence's commission.- Include the company as accused for Section 141 claims.
Failure leads to quashing, preventing abuse of process. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 315 2022 6 Supreme 740
2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 483 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1255
A signatory may be held liable under the NI Act if they signed the cheque, were responsible for company affairs, and the company is prosecuted alongside. However, courts scrutinize roles strictly—non-signatories or those not in charge typically escape liability.
Key Takeaways:- Signatory = Presumed responsibility, but conditions apply. 2006 0 Supreme(Ker) 618- Company must be accused for vicarious claims. 1940 0 Supreme(SC) 58- Specific averments mandatory; mere designation insufficient. 2022 6 Supreme 740- Non-signatories need proven involvement. 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1105 2025 0 Supreme(Chh) 187
Understanding these nuances can safeguard businesses from unwarranted litigation. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to navigate cheque-related disputes effectively.
References: 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 483 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1255 2006 0 Supreme(Ker) 618 2022 6 Supreme 740 2012 3 Supreme 416 1940 0 Supreme(SC) 58 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 76 2021 3 Supreme 612 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 315 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1105 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3257 2025 0 Supreme(Chh) 187 2015 0 Supreme(P&H) 767
#NIACT, #Section138, #ChequeBounce
(i) Whether the signatory of the cheque, authorized by the “Company”, is the “drawer” and whether such signatory could be directed to pay interim compensation in terms of section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter “NI Act”, for short) living aside the company.” ... No one is to be held criminally liable for an act....
For the purpose of adjudication of the present petitions, the primary issue to be determined is “whether the necessary averments were made in the complaints so as to enable the trial Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Act or not. ... (1) Anyone who by words spoken or written or by conduct represent himself, or knowingly permits himself to be represented, to be a partner in a firm, is liable as a partner in that firm ....
Only a person who is in charge and responsible for the affairs of the company can be held liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. The name of the petitioner was removed from the list of authorized signatories on 29.1.2018. ... The Court held that the Managing Director, Joint Managing Director and Signatory will be responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under Section 14....
[(2005) 8 SCC 89] , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the question as to whether it was sufficient to make the person liable for being a director of a company under section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. ... The question for consideration in the matter is whether complainant has made sufficient averments to bring petitioner under accusation on the ground that he is vicariously liable and responsibl....
If the person committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a company, the person who was signatory to the cheque which is dishonoured is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and would be liable to be proceeded against under Section 141 (2); (supra) has categorically held that it was necessary to specifically aver in a complaint for the purpose of section 141....
In identical fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to attract offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, only the drawer of the cheque can be held liable and Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act does not speak about joint liability. ... A person might have been jointly liable to pay the debt, but if such a person who might have been liable to pa....
Thus, from above judgements it is crystal clear that when the offence is committed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the companies, then, the Joint Managing Director and signatory of the cheque are liable for the offence alongwith the company. ... Ahuja (supra), the Apex Court has held as under: "29. ..................As held in [K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. ... Therefore, once the company has been arrayed as an....
Simply because a person is a Director of a company, does not make him liable under the NI Act. Every person connected with the Company will not fall into the ambit of the provision. ... No. 10396 of 2019), on 1 August, 2022, held:- “23. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89, cited by Mr. Luthra, this Court held: “10. ... The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is neither the Director nor the ....
the court below, the trial court held that there are enough grounds for proceedings against the petitioners. ... Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in total 7 complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the NI Act') were filed by the respondent-company against the petitioner with similar allegations relating to different cheques which were allegedly dishonoured. ... This is clearly discernible fr....
Thus, as per the complaint, the loan was taken by the accused individually, and he was not held liable as an authorised signatory of the Society. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the accused is liable being the authorised signatory/Director is not sustainable. ... Learned Courts below did not have the advantage of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anita Hada (sup....
2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of Criminal Proceedings bearing Case No.4823/2018 which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (Annexure P/2) and the subsequent revision order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned 4th ADJ, Raipur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1). (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. A non-signatory ....
A signatory of a cheque is clearly liable under Section 138/141 of the NI Act.
Admittedly, fraud vitiates everything but it has to be looked into very carefully that who had committed the fraud. Whether petitioner can be held liable for the act which was not committed by him?
Or alternatively can the authorized signatory who has drawn the cheque be successfully prosecuted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 1. Whether the proprietor of concern can be held criminally liable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act', for short) for dishonor of a cheque drawn by his authorised signatory? Act notwithstanding the fact that the cheque has not been drawn on an account maintained by him?
Whether the non-signatory of a cheque can be made liable for an offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act? 2. Whether there is difference between sleeping partners and active partners for determining their liability U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act? 3. Is there any vicarious liability under the criminal law?
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
