Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Complaints Against Directors Under Section 138/141 of NI Act for Lack of Specific Averments. The Court Held That Mere Designation as Director Without Allegation of Being in Charge of and Responsible for Company's Affairs Does Not Satisfy Section 141, Following S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The matter involved a series of criminal writ petitions filed by Directors of two companies, Elite International Pvt. Ltd. and Vedic Cotton Limited, seeking to quash complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the ground that the complaints lacked the specific averments necessary to fix vicarious liability under Section 141. The petitioners, Parag Bhikhalal Tejani and Rohit Dave, contended that the complaints merely stated that they were Directors without alleging that they were in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company at the time the offence was committed, which is a mandatory requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in a line of authorities including S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that similar averments had been upheld by a coordinate bench of the High Court in Mrs. Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra and subsequently by the Supreme Court in Rallys India Ltd. v. Poduru Vidya Bhusan. The High Court, after noting the submissions, examined the scope of Section 141, which extends criminal liability to every person who, at the time of the offence, was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The Court quoted extensively from the Supreme Court's decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals, where it was emphasized that merely holding a designation is not enough; the role and responsibility of the individual in the affairs of the company must be averred. The Supreme Court had observed that a director may not be involved in day-to-day management and that liability depends on the role played, not on designation. The High Court then applied these principles to the complaints in question. Noting that the averments in the complaints did not specifically state that the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, and distinguishing the Rallys India case on the ground that in that case there was a specific averment that the accused were in charge of day-to-day affairs, the Court concluded that the complaints were liable to be quashed insofar as they sought to prosecute the petitioners. Accordingly, all the writ petitions were allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

Headnote

A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Offences by Companies - Vicarious Liability of Directors - Section 141, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Requirement of specific averments in complaint - The High Court examined whether the complaints filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 contained the necessary averments to make the Directors vicariously liable. The Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. had held that to invoke Section 141, the complaint must specifically allege that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time; mere use of a designation is insufficient. The petitioners argued that the complaints lacked such averments, while the respondents relied on coordinate bench decisions and the Supreme Court's Rallys India judgment. The Court proceeded to analyze the averments in the light of these precedents. (Paras 8-14)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the complaints contain sufficient averments to fasten vicarious liability upon the petitioners as Directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petitions are allowed. The criminal complaints in question are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioners.

Law Points

  • To attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • the complaint must contain specific averments that the person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the offence
  • merely stating the designation is insufficient. The Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla held that the role of a director is a question of fact and not every director is automatically liable.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 59

Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1342 to 1348 of 2010, 2033 to 2041 of 2010

2011-06-17

B.R. Gavai, J.

2011:BHC-AS:12741

S.V. Kotwal, K.S. Vardhan, Sapna Rachure for petitioners; Mrs. M.R. Tidke for State; Yashpal Thakur for respondent No.2

Parag Bhikhalal Tejani and Rohit Dave

State of Maharashtra and another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against directors of companies for lack of specific averments to invoke vicarious liability under Section 141.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal complaints filed against them by respondent No.2 under Section 138 read with Section 141.

Filing Reason

The petitioners contended that the complaints merely alleged that they were directors without specifying their role in the conduct of the business, which is insufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 as per Supreme Court precedents.

Previous Decisions

A coordinate bench of the High Court had previously held that similar averments were sufficient in the case of another director of the same company. The respondents argued that the Supreme Court in Rallys India Ltd. had also found such averments adequate.

Issues

Whether the complaints contain sufficient averments to fasten vicarious liability upon the petitioners as Directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the complaints merely stated that the petitioners were Directors without any specific allegation that they were in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 141 as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Respondents argued that the averments made in the complaints were identical to those held sufficient in the case of Mrs. Pooja Ravinder Devidasani and in Rajiv Banga by the High Court, and that the Supreme Court in Rallys India Ltd. had found similar averments sufficient to proceed against directors.

Ratio Decidendi

To attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must contain specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time the offence was committed. Merely stating that the person is a Director is not sufficient.

Judgment Excerpts

The liability arises from being in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation of office in a company. There is no universal rule that a Director of a company is in charge of its everyday affairs. It all depends upon respective roles assigned to the offices in a company.

Procedural History

The respondent No.2 filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the companies and their directors, including the petitioners. The petitioners, as Directors, filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court for quashing the complaints, arguing that the necessary averments under Section 141 were absent. The High Court issued Rule and heard the parties finally, disposing of all petitions by this common oral judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 141
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Complaints Against Directors Under Section 138/141 of NI Act for Lack of Specific Averments. The Court Held That Mere Designation as Director Without Allegation of Being in Charge of and Responsible for Company's Af...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Stock Broker Dispute — No Interference Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act as Award Not Found to be Patently Illegal or Contrary to Public Policy. The court upheld the arbitrator's ...