#Section 141

A never-consummated marriage with 84 days’ separation and a MOU settlement showing no reconciliation amounts to exceptional hardship, permitting waiver of the one-year period under HMA Sec 14(1) for an immediate divorce petition, as held by Delhi HC.

HP HC held that complaint under Sec 141 NI Act must show averments linking a director to dishonoured cheque; mere resignation does not quash proceedings. This sets the evidentiary standard for director liability and shields officers from baseless claims.

The Supreme Court held that a Hindu widow’s limited interest under Section 3(2) of HWRPA 1937 becomes absolute upon her husband’s death under Section 14(1) of HSA 1956, validating her will and property sale and clarifying widows’ rights.

The Calcutta High Court quashed NI Act proceedings against whole-time directors who were not signatories to the dishonoured cheques, ruling that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires specific averments linking the director to the transaction. The decision clarifies that a mere corporate role is insufficient to attract liability, affecting directors in cheque bounce disputes.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the criminal complaint, holding that without a specific allegation that a director was ‘in charge of and responsible for the company’s business’ at the time of the offence, Section 141 cannot be invoked. This narrows vicarious liability for directors in cheque-dishonour cases, limiting prosecution to those expressly shown to control the business.

The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s summons to a former director, ruling that without explicit allegations tying him to the cheque-bounce offence, vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be presumed. Plaintiffs must detail the director’s personal role to sustain a summons. The decision limits blanket liability of resigned directors in NI-Act proceedings.

Delhi High Court refused to quash summons issued to the directors of Dev Bhoomi Automobiles, holding that a prima facie case under Sections 138 and 141 NI Act suffices at the pre-trial stage. The court clarified that directors can be held vicariously liable for the company’s dishonoured cheques without proving they signed the instrument. Consequently, lack of signatory status cannot shield directors from criminal summons in NI Act matters.

Delhi High Court holds that a director who resigned before cheque issuance cannot be held liable under Section 141 NI Act unless formally recorded with ROC. Key precedent on procedural compliance.