In a significant ruling that clarifies the nature of corporate liability in financial crimes, the Delhi High Court has held that criminal proceedings in a cheque bounce case do not automatically collapse against a company and its directors just because the person who actually signed the cheque has been dropped from the case.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the bench, emphasized that the liability of a company and its directors under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881, is "vicarious but independent." This means that as long as the company is an accused, the directors who were in charge of its affairs at the time of the offence can still be prosecuted, regardless of whether the specific signatory is still part of the legal proceedings.

The High Court was dealing with a batch of petitions filed by GBL Chemicals Limited and its directors. These petitions sought to quash summoning orders issued by a trial court in multiple complaints involving the dishonour of cheques totaling over ₹21 crore.

The complaints were originally filed by a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) after several cheques issued by GBL Chemicals were returned by the bank with the remark "signature differs."

During the trial proceedings, the complainant (the NBFC) decided not to pursue the case against the specific individual who had signed the cheques and "dropped" them from the list of accused. Seizing this opportunity, the company and its other directors approached the High Court. They argued that since the "main actor"—the person who signed the cheques—was no longer being prosecuted, the case against the company and the remaining directors should also be dismissed.

The High Court rejected this argument, providing a detailed explanation of how Section 138 and Section 141 of the NI Act function in a corporate setup.

1. The Company is the Principal Offender The Court noted that under Section 138, the "drawer" of the cheque is the primary person responsible. In this case, the drawer is the company. The directors are held liable under Section 141 because they are "in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business."

2. Liability is not just about the Signature Justice Krishna observed that an offence under Section 138 is a "composite offence." It isn't completed the moment a cheque is signed or even when it is dishonoured. The offence is only "complete" when the drawer fails to make the payment within 15 days of receiving a legal demand notice.

The Court clarified:

"The dropping of the signatory of cheques from proceedings does not result in the automatic collapse of the complaint against the petitioner companies and the other directors. The statutory presumptions and the principles of corporate vicarious liability necessitate that the matter proceed to trial."

3. Resignation of Signatories The Court also touched upon a common scenario where a director who signs a cheque might resign before the cheque is actually presented to the bank. The Court held that while a trial court might find such a person "not in charge" at the time of the actual dishonour, their exit does not grant "amnesty" or a clean chit to the company or the remaining directors. The debt remains a corporate liability that the staying directors must answer for.

The petitioners further argued that there wasn't enough evidence to show the directors were involved in the day-to-day operations. However, the High Court reminded the parties that at the initial stage of "summoning," a Magistrate is not required to conduct a deep "roving inquiry" into the internal board meetings of a company.

If the complaint contains basic facts stating that the directors were in charge of the business, and the company itself is named as an accused, the legal requirements are satisfied for the trial to begin.

This judgment is a major boost for creditors and financial institutions. It prevents companies from escaping liability through technical loopholes, such as removing a specific signatory from the case or pointing to the resignation of the person who signed the instrument.

By affirming that the "debt is a corporate liability," the Delhi High Court has ensured that the protective shield of corporate identity cannot be used to defeat the purpose of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Case Title: GBL Chemicals Limited & Ors. v. State

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2155/2025

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna