HDFC Bank Limited Vs State of Maharashtra And Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Specific Role of Director Need Not Be Detailed in Cheque Dishonour Complaint: Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability u/s 141 of NI Act
The petition was filed to challenge the judgment passed by Hon’ble Bombay HC whereby the proceedings have been quashed on the ground that there were no sufficient averments in the complaint filed by the appellant to invoke the vicarious liability against the respondent No. 2 under Section 141 of the NI Act. Hon’ble SC have held that that there is no obligation on the complainant to plead in the complaint as to matters within the special knowledge of the company or the directors or firm about the specific role attributed to them in the company. It is the case of the appellant that a cheque issued by the accused for a sum of Rs. 6,02,04,217/- on deposit was dishonored for the reason “account blocked”. According to the appellant, a legal notice was issued to all the accused. However, the said notice was returned back as “unclaimed”. The appellant thus prosecuted the company and the three directors and prayed for appropriate punishment of imprisonment as well as direction to pay fine up to double the amount of the dishonored cheque. On 16.12.2018, the Trial Court issued process to the respondents in the complaint which is quashed by the HC by holding that complaint lacks adequate averments.
