2022 (4) TMI 1245 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - One Time Settlement Scheme - essential ingredients of vicarious liability under Section 141 of N.I. Act present or not - HELD THAT - . This Court cannot be oblivious nor can it shut its eyes to see that the amount disbursed by the respondent in favour of the SDBL as a loan is a pubic money and if they are not serious to recover the same and litigating the matter as per their own choice by not initiating any recovery proceeding the amount which is being offered by the borrower cannot be denied to accept. The proceeding of N.I.Act cannot be kept pending only because the respondent is not willing to settle the dispute despite the fact as has been discussed above amount is still lying with the respondent. The overall circumstances and the averments made in the complaint and the excellent ratiocination prima facie made the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners more impressionable but this Court is uninterested being disinterested to step into that question for the reason that the offer made by the petitioners for adjustment of amount appears reasonable and impregnable. Ergo to break the chain of elongated litigation pursued unnecessarily for more than two decades and to bring the discord to its logical end it is opined that the complaint cases should be quashed by adequately compensating the respondent. The proceedings of all the complaint cases which have given rise to these petitions are hereby quashed. It is directed that from the deposited amount of the SDBL which is lying in Escrow Account and in possession of the respondent the total cheque amounts in all the complaint cases shall be adjusted and further an amount of 50 Lac towards compensation and 20 Lac towards cost of litigation shall also be adjusted - petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of complaint cases under Sections 138, 141, and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Compliance with the essential ingredients of Section 141 of the N.I. Act.
3. Adjustment of the amount deposited by SDBL with the respondent against the cheque amounts.
4. Maintainability of second petitions under Section 482 of CrPC.
5. Adequacy of allegations against Directors under Section 141 of the N.I. Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashment of Complaint Cases under Sections 138, 141, and 142 of the N.I. Act:
The petitioners sought to quash the complaint cases filed by the respondent under Sections 138, 141, and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal. The complaints were related to the dishonor of cheques issued by SDBL in favor of the respondent for repayment of loans sanctioned through Inter Corporate Deposits (ICDs).

2. Compliance with the Essential Ingredients of Section 141 of the N.I. Act:
The petitioners argued that the essential ingredients of Section 141 of the N.I. Act were missing as there was no description in the complaint about how petitioners No.2 and 3 were responsible for the day-to-day business of SDBL. The court cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that for vicarious liability under Section 141, the complaint must specifically show how and in what manner the accused was responsible. The court found that the allegations against petitioners No.2 and 3 did not fulfill these requirements.

3. Adjustment of the Amount Deposited by SDBL with the Respondent Against the Cheque Amounts:
The petitioners contended that the amount of ?7,60,47,000 deposited by SDBL, which had earned interest and was still lying with the respondent, should be adjusted against the total value of the bounced cheques (?6.71 Crores). The court found this argument reasonable and justified, noting that the amount deposited by SDBL, including interest, was more than the cheque amounts and should be adjusted accordingly.

4. Maintainability of Second Petitions under Section 482 of CrPC:
The respondent argued that the second set of petitions under Section 482 of CrPC for the same cause of action was not maintainable, as similar petitions had been dismissed earlier. The court, however, found that the current petitions presented a different aspect, focusing on the adjustment of the deposited amount against the cheque amounts rather than the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme.

5. Adequacy of Allegations Against Directors under Section 141 of the N.I. Act:
The court examined the allegations made in the complaint against the Directors (petitioners No.2 and 3) and found them insufficient to fulfill the requirements of Section 141. The court emphasized that merely stating that the Directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business without specific details was inadequate for establishing vicarious liability.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitions, quashing the proceedings of all the complaint cases. It directed that the total cheque amounts and additional compensation and litigation costs be adjusted from the amount deposited by SDBL, which was lying in the Escrow Account with the respondent. The petitioners were thus discharged for the satisfaction of legal liability/debt payment to the respondent under the cheques.

← Previous Next →