Is an authorized signatory or director of a company liable for prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, or section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, without the company being named as an accused?
Ruling simultaneously in Aneeta Hada v M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd, Avnish Bajaj v State and Ebay India Pvt Ltd v State, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court considered if this was also true in the context of any person mentioned in sections 141(1) and 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and section 85 of the Information Technology Act, which are identical.
Applying the doctrine of strict construction, the Supreme Court held that commission of an offence by a company “is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others”. As the words person and company appear in section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with offences by companies, the court ruled that it is “absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof”.
You must be a
subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber
to read this content, please
subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe
today.
For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.
你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章，欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员。
The update of court judgments is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
