The Supreme Court (SC) in Bijoy Kumar Moni v Paresh Manna & Anr [2024 INSC 1024], reiterated that the authorised signatory of a company cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque drawn on the company’s account, unless the company is arraigned as the principal accused.
Under Section 138 of the NI Act, only the drawer of the cheque can be made liable. It relied on various precedents which clarified that a cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the accused to attract liability under Section 138.
The expression “on an account maintained by him with a banker” in Section 138 of the NI Act establishes a specific relationship between the account holder and the banker, and delegating authority to manage or transact from an account does not alter the fact that the account is maintained by the account holder,
It is the drawer Company which must be first held to be the principal offender under Section 138 of the NI Act before culpability can be extended, through a deeming fiction, to the persons in-charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business.
In the absence of the liability of the drawer Company, there would naturally be no requirement to hold the other persons vicariously liable for the offence committed under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The Section 138 of the NI Act clearly postulates that the cheque returned for insufficiency of funds should have been drawn by a person on an account maintained by him.
Specific Relief Act
Parswanath Saha vs Bandhana Modak (Das) 2024 INSC 1022 – S 20 Specific Relief Act – Hardship
Dec 20, 2024
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 (Pre 2019 amendment) – Mere rise in price subsequent to the date of the contract or inadequacy of price is not to be treated as a hardship entailing refusal of specific performance of the contract. Further, the hardship involved should be one not foreseen by the party and should be collateral to the contract. In sum, it is not just one factor or two, that is relevant for consideration. But it is the some total on various factors which is required to enter into the judicial verdict. (Para 28-29).
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181848494/
Service Law
Union Of India vs N.M. Raut 2024 INSC 1042 – Service Law – MACP Scheme
Dec 21, 2024
Service Law – Interpretation and implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2008, applicable with effect from 01.09.2008- SC Held: the Respondents would be entitled to the benefits of the MACPS only after taking into consideration all the financial upgradations earned by them, in terms of the CCS RP Rules. Financial upgradations under the said Rules have to be accounted for and will be treated as financial upgradations earned for the purpose of reckoning the 10-year intervals and the three assured financial upgradations, in terms of Grade Pay, under the MACPS.
Union Of India vs N.M. Raut 2024 INSC 1042