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
Indian Laws - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights July 2024 Year 2024 This

The law regarding the liability of a director for an offence u/s ...


Vicarious liability: Directors liable for company's offences under NI Act only if in charge of day-to-day affairs & management.

Case Laws     Indian Laws

July 11, 2024

The law regarding the liability of a director for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act committed by a company is well-established. Section 141, being a penal provision, must be strictly construed. Only directors who were in charge of the day-to-day affairs and responsible for the conduct of the company's business can be held liable. The word 'in-charge of business' implies having overall control of the day-to-day business. To establish vicarious liability, the complainant must show that the director was associated with the day-to-day affairs and management. A director cannot be accused based on a cursory statement or vague averment. The appropriate pleadings/averments will be determined case-by-case. In the present case, the complaint contained necessary averments in line with Section 141, stating that the petitioner, along with other directors, was jointly and severally responsible and in charge of the company's business and management. The petition was dismissed.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. Dishonor of Cheque - liability of a Director of a company - vicarious liability - It is clear from the perusal of the complaint that there is no specific averment that...

  2. Dishonour of Cheque - Vicarious liability of the Company Secretary - The CS was never a Director of the Accused Company - In-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the...

  3. Dishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability of Director - the petitioner is being implicated as third accused who is inducted as Non Executive Director of the first accused...

  4. Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of the director - appellant was in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the Company or not - The appellant argued against her...

  5. A director of a company cannot evade vicarious liability for the offence of dishonor of cheque u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by merely claiming to be a...

  6. Dishonor of Cheque - it is crystal clear that vicarious liability under sub section 1 or 2 of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be fastened if the person...

  7. Dishonor of Cheque - framing of charges against the Directors - vicarious liability - only directors of company is made the accused, leaving the company - commission of...

  8. Dishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability of an independent director - In absence of any specific averments or allegations carving out a specific role attributable to...

  9. Interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with vicarious liability for offenses committed by companies u/s 138 (dishonor of cheques)....

  10. Dishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability of Directors in the company - There is no specific averment in the complaint to the effect that the petitioners who are all the...

  11. Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of director - Vicarious liability can be inferred against a company registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956...

  12. Dishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability - Whether the company is not functioning from January 2014 and the petitioner were not directors in the company at that point of...

  13. Dishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability of the independent Director - In absence of any specific averments or allegations carving out a specific role attributable to...

  14. Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of Managing Director - The liability of persons referred to in Section 141 of the N.I Act is coextensive with that of the...

  15. Dishonor of Cheque - person responsible for day to day affairs of the company - In the facts of the present case, the only averment in the complaint is that the...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates