Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., held that if no offence is attributed to the company, its Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of its business cannot be saddled with any liability.
The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent. It was stated that, the commercial space owned by the petitioner had been let out upon terms and conditions in the Rent Agreement.
The above-said rent agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent’s company. Further, in March-April, 2013 the respondent was alleged to have issued five cheques duly signed by the Managing Director to discharge the company’s liability to pay the rent.
The above-said cheques were bounced; hence the complaint was filed.
Analysis and Decision
High Court observed that the Company upon which the primary liability rests and a person who is sought to be made vicariously liable for an offence of which the principal accused is a company, would need to have a role to play in relation to the incriminating act.
Section 141 of the N.I. Act operates only when the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is committed by a company.
Further, Court stated that the Company being the primary accused must be found to have committed an offence. Thereafter, through the legal fiction created by Section 141 of the N.I. Act, the Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of its business also become vicarious liable.
In the present matter, all the averments were against the respondent, who was described as Managing Director.
There was no pleading which suggested that the Company had committed any offence.
When no offence is attributable to the Company, it is not possible to attach liability on the Managing Director by the deeming provisions of Section 141 of the N.I. Act.
Bench added that, amendments of simple technical infirmities alone can be allowed but not the filing of a fresh complaint with improved pleadings in the garb of the amendment.
Hence, in view of the above discussion, Court denied grant permission to amend the complaint.
Therefore, the petition was dismissed. [Hari Shamsher Kaushik v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1379, decided on 9-5-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Petitioner: Mahesh K. Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent: None