Introduction
In a recent landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (‘DHC’) meticulously dissected the intricate web of corporate relationships and responsibilities under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’). This case, Sachin Kumar Parolia v. Rahul Rajan[i], arose from a petition filed under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) that had set aside summons against certain directors of a corporate group. It clarifies the extent of vicarious liability and the corporate veil under s. 138 of the NI Act, offering a compelling narrative on the necessity of clear averments and substantive proof when seeking to extend criminal liability to directors and group entities.
Brief Facts
Right Choice Marketing Solutions JLT, a UAE-based entity, and Right Choice Builders Private Limited, an Indian company, were involved in this case, which revolved around investment transactions. The Petitioner alleged that he was lured into investing AED 600,000 in the Indian company through its UAE-based marketing wing with promises of high returns by the directors of the Right Choice Group of Companies.
Multiple post-dated cheques were issued to the Petitioner as a guarantee for the investment, which was later dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Accordingly, legal notices were served, and criminal complaints were filed in Abu Dhabi, leading to the conviction of one of the accused persons.
The Petitioner issued a legal demand notice and subsequently filed a complaint under s. 138 of the NI Act in New Delhi, resulting in the issuance of summons to the accused. This was challenged and set aside by the ASJ, leading to the appeal before the DHC.
Held
The DHC found no merit in the petition and confirmed the order passed by the ASJ. The DHC scrutinized the relationship between the accused entities, noting that no material evidence was presented to establish that the UAE entity was a branch of the Indian company. It was highlighted that each entity within the Right Choice Group had a separate legal identity despite being part of the same conglomerate.
The DHC emphasized that s. 141 of the NI Act did not extend vicarious liability to group companies but only to individuals directly responsible for the company’s affairs. The DHC referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in S. P. Mani & Mohan Diary v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan,[ii] which outlined the principles governing the liability of persons under s. 141 of the NI Act. Thus, it affirmed the principle that the corporate veil cannot be lifted in cases of criminal liability under s. 138 of the NI Act.
It was concluded that the Petitioner had merely made bald assertions regarding the role of the directors in question and had utterly failed to bring any material on record to establish that they were in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the drawer of the cheque.
Our Analysis
This ruling is a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the sanctity of corporate structures and the limitations of vicarious liability. This decision is significant for two reasons. Firstly, it reaffirms the principle that each entity within a corporate group retains its distinct legal identity, and liabilities cannot be indiscriminately extended across the group. This reinforces the need for precise and detailed pleadings when alleging vicarious liability under the NI Act. Secondly, the decision has broad implications for corporate governance, which reasserts the doctrine that the corporate veil should only be pierced in exceptional circumstances.
This decision sends a clear message that the courts will not hesitate to protect the autonomy of legal entities, provided they operate within the bounds of the law. This ruling may also influence how businesses structure their operations and the level of transparency required in their dealings. In essence, the DHC has drawn a line in the sand, demarcating the extent to which individuals can be held accountable for the actions of their corporate counterparts.
End Notes
[i] [2024] 162 taxmann.com 879 (Delhi), [dated: 22.04.2024]
[ii] (2023) 10 SCC 685
Authored by Srishty Jaura, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.