Section 141, The NI Act II

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

In light of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89 in addition to asserting Directors are in-charge and responsible for conduct of business, if statutory compliance of Section 141 has been made – it is not open for High Courts to interfere under Section 482, CrPC unless it comes across some unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate, Director could not have been concerned with issuance of cheques and asking him to stand trial would be abuse of process of Court.  

– Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi, Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya v. M/s. Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd., [Criminal Appeal No. 1206 of 2021].

_____

Also see, Dayle De’Souza v. Government of India, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3913 of 2020] decided on 29.10.2021 and Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, [Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2022] decided on 09.05.2022 and Sunita Palita v. M/s. Panchami Stone Quarry, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10396 of 2019] decided on 01.08.2022.

_____

Debate on Section 141 of The NI Act is never ending.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, S.P. Mani v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, [Criminal Appeal No. 1586 of 2022] decided on 16.09.2022.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.