SUSELA PADMAVATHY AMMA versus M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED

SUSELA PADMAVATHY AMMA versus M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED

The complaint did not contain averments that the appellant was in charge of or responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company; therefore Section 141 of the NI Act could not be invoked against her and the criminal proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 142 were quashed insofar as they related to the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Susela Padmavathy Amma; Respondent: M/S Bharti Airtel Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed.
Legal Topics
Section 138 NI Act, Section 142 NI Act, Section 141 NI Act, Quashing of Criminal Complaints, Vicarious Liability of Directors, Dishonour of Cheque
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Companies Act, 1956 Criminal Law Company Law Section 138 NI Act Section 142 NI Act Section 141 NI Act +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susela Padmavathy Amma

Appellant

M/S Bharti Airtel Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint contained averments sufficient to invoke Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant
  2. 2 Whether a director can be vicariously liable for offences under the NI Act without specific averments showing he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the criminal complaints against the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint did not contain averments that the appellant was in charge of or responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company; therefore Section 141 of the NI Act could not be invoked against her and the criminal proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 142 were quashed insofar as they related to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed.

Orders

  • Judgment and order dated 26th April, 2022 passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside.
  • Proceedings in CC Nos. 3151 and 3150 of 2017 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in connection with the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act are quashed and set aside qua the present appellant.