Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2019 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (4) TMI 1819 - HC - Companies Law


Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Applicability of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to criminal proceedings.
3. Responsibility of petitioner no.2 during the period of moratorium.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the proceedings in connection with C.C.No.387 of 2017 for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the petitioners issued two cheques, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite receiving a demand notice, the petitioners failed to make the payment. The court noted that the issuance and dishonor of the cheques were admitted facts, and the petitioners' liability under Section 138 was presumed under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the averments in the complaint prima facie indicated the commission of the alleged offence.

2. Applicability of Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to Criminal Proceedings:
The petitioners argued that the proceedings should be quashed due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the IBC, which prohibits the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. The court referred to the order of moratorium dated 30.03.2017 and the relevant provisions of Section 14 of the IBC. It was emphasized that the moratorium did not prohibit the continuation of criminal proceedings. The court cited the decision in Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra, which held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not apply to criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Responsibility of Petitioner No.2 During the Period of Moratorium:
The petitioners contended that petitioner no.2 was not responsible for the dishonor of the cheque as he was a suspended Director during the moratorium period and the company's affairs were managed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The court noted that the declaration of moratorium did not absolve the petitioners of their liability under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized that the plea of petitioner no.2 not being in charge of the company's affairs during the moratorium could not be accepted at this stage. The court stated that such defenses should be raised during the trial and not in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the declaration of moratorium under the IBC does not bar the continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments. The interim order, if any, stood vacated. The related applications, C.R.A.N.678 of 2019 and C.R.A.N.770 of 2019, were also dismissed as infructuous. The court reiterated that it should not assume the jurisdiction of the trial court and delve into the merits of the case while considering an application under Section 482.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates