Select Your Location
Under Indian Laws, the company is regarded as a separate legal entity. The company consist of various individuals who are responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business. While the shareholders receive the returns on their investment, the board of directors is responsible for the management and functioning of the company. Henceforth, any transactions entered on behalf of the company are approved by the board of directors, and therefore, they can be held accountable for all acts of the company.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides the aggrieved party with a remedy to file a case against the company and its board of directors if the cheque is dishonoured. The acts of dishonour of cheques drawn by the company against the party do not subsume the liability of directors. They are vicariously liable for any default on the part of the company. The present article will discuss the liability of the director and defines the role of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in providing a remedy to the aggrieved party.
The dishonour of a cheque literally means “Cheque Bounce”. It is a situation whereby the bank refuses to pay the person due to any deficiency in the accounts of the drawer of the cheque. Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 talks about the dishonour of cheque and states that the dishonour of cheque shall take place if any cheque drawn by the individual for the payment to another person in the process of discharging their duty is returned due to:
Section-138 of NI Act, 1881 further states the conditions before filing any case against the individual for the dishonour of a cheque:
The key managerial persons carry out the decisions of the company. Hence, the directors are vicariously liable for any transactions entered in the company’s name. The principle of vicarious liability can be understood as the relationship between employer and employee wherein the employer is responsible for every act of the employee. The NI Act has further reiterated the same principle by providing a separate section in the act. Section 141 of the act clearly states that if the acts of the company are in contravention of Section -138 (Dishonour of Cheque), then the person responsible for the company’s day-to-day activities is to be held liable. In clear terms, the act states directors’ liability for the offence committed under Section 138, provided the directors have the knowledge and have given connivance to the act.
The persons responsible for the conduct of the business can be held liable for the offence under Section 138 of the act. Further, Section 141 (2) of the act clearly states the persons who can be held liable for the offences committed under Section 138, provided the act is committed with the consent or connivance of the:
From the plain reading of Section 141, it can be clearly inferred that only those directors who are directly connected with the transaction that led to an offence, can be held liable. All the directors of the company cannot be merely apprehended for the acts committed by other directors and therefore, the liability of directors shall depend on the direct connection of the person with the wrong transaction.
According to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a “Director” means a partner of the firm and a “company” include a body corporate, firm and association of individuals.
The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 under Section 141, along with dictating the liability of directors for any acts committed on behalf of the company, also states the exemptions. The liability of directors can be discharged only:
The court in the case reiterated the view that compliance under section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, shall contain the material evidence for initiating any legal proceedings against the directors of the company. The court states that every person in the company cannot be held liable for the commission of the acts. The liability of directors only arises for those persons who are responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time and not on the basis of holding a designation or office of a company.
The court in the case has answered the issue of whether a partner can be convicted and held to be vicariously liable when the partnership firm is not accused of the offence. While interpreting Section 141 of the act, the court states that the partner can only be held vicariously liable when the principal or primary accused is the company. It means that the vicarious liability of the partner only arises when the company or firm is the primary offender. The sole acts of the director or firm cannot make the company liable for the offence.
The court in the case has answered the issue of whether the non-executive directors can be held liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court reiterated that the complaint shall not indulge every director of the company in its complaint for cheque dishonour. The complainant shall only file a complaint against those directors who are directly connected with the transactions. Therefore, the liability of independent non-executive directors could not be inferred for the offences to they are not directly related to.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, under Section 138, read with Section 141 of the act, had clearly stated its intention to make the liability of directors for the offence committed by them in the name of the company. By the general principle of law, they are the management of the company and are responsible for the daily conduct of the business. Similarly, if any case is brought for cheque dishonour, the directors, managers, or other responsible persons can be held vicariously liable. At the same time, the complainant shall only indulge those managerial persons who are directly related to the transactions.
Read our Article: Liabilities and Disqualifications for Appointment of Director
An Advocate by profession, Nikhil Mogha holds experience in the field of Business and Securities law. He has done his Masters of Law in Corporate Law from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi. He is also versed with the drafting and research work in the field of Company Law, Banking Laws and Contract Laws.
On 18th May 2023, the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) released a Consultation Paper o...
Infrastructure and real estate have been regarded as India's "sunshine sector" since the turn o...
On 22nd May 2023, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued a new circular under secti...
Anyone can have different sources of income. With globalization and the opening up of economies...
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is crucial in regulating NBFC, including branch openings and cl...
In India, Non-Banking Financial Companies are subject to certain restrictions from taking publi...
It's usually a good idea to diversify the assets in your financial portfolio, especially during...
A nation is being built by the non-banking finance company through the development of wealth, t...
A corporate entity known as a portfolio manager complies with a contract or agreement with the...
Identifying and analysing risks associated with individual portfolio investments, such as equit...
Are you human?: 8 + 9 =
Easy Payment Options Available No Spam. No Sharing. 100% Confidentiality
An LLP may shift its registered office from one place to another for fulfilling any of its purpose. There may be ch...
01 Aug, 2017
Removal of a shareholder from a company is a very lengthy process. A company must enter into an agreement with the...
10 Dec, 2019
Red Herring Top 100 Asia enlists outstanding entrepreneurs and promising companies. It selects the award winners from approximately 2000 privately financed companies each year in the Asia. Since 1996, Red Herring has kept tabs on these up-and-comers. Red Herring editors were among the first to recognize that companies such as Google, Facebook, Kakao, Alibaba, Twitter, Rakuten, Salesforce.com, Xiaomi and YouTube would change the way we live and work.
Researchers have found out that organization using new technologies in their accounting and tax have better productivity as compared to those using the traditional methods. Complying with the recent technological trends in the accounting industry, Enterslice was formed to focus on the emerging start up companies and bring innovation in their traditional Chartered Accountants & Legal profession services, disrupt traditional Chartered Accountants practice mechanism & Lawyers.
Stay updated with all the latest legal updates. Just enter your email address and subscribe for free!
Chat on Whatsapp
Hey I'm Suman. Let's Talk!