Supreme Court Judgment Summary

Name of the Parties: Vishnoo Mittal v. M/s Shakti Trading Company

Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1104 of 2022
Date of Judgment: March 17, 2025
Coram: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
________________________________________________________________________________
Headnote:
Insolvency, Immunity, Quashed
The Supreme Court held that where a director of a company, after the commencement of
insolvency and imposition of a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 (IBC), is divested of all management powers and rendered incapable of making payment
on behalf of the company, no prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, can be maintained against him, since the essential ingredients of the offence are not
satisfied, and accordingly quashed the complaint pending against the director.
Legal Issues
1. Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act can be continued against a
director after a moratorium under Section 14 IBC has commenced and the director is
divested of control.
2. If the cause of action under Section 138 NI Act arises after moratorium and suspension of
the board, does liability under Section 138 NI Act continue against the director.
Factual Matrix
• Appellant was a director of M/s Xalta Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd., which had business
dealings with the respondent, M/s Shakti Trading Company.
• Eleven cheques collectively amounting to about Rs. 11,17,326/- were drawn in favour of the
respondent, but dishonoured on July 7, 2018.
• A legal notice under Section 138 NI Act was issued to the appellant on August 6, 2018;
complaint was filed in September 2018.
• Meanwhile, on July 25, 2018, insolvency proceedings commenced against the company and
a moratorium under Section 14 IBC was imposed, with the Interim Resolution Professional
(IRP) taking over management.
• Appellant’s petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings was dismissed by
Punjab & Haryana High Court, leading to this appeal.
Court's Observations
• The cause of action for Section 138 NI Act does not arise on mere dishonour of cheques but
only after failure to pay within 15 days of receipt of demand notice.
• At the time the demand notice was served (August 6, 2018) and the 15-day window expired,
the corporate debtor was already under moratorium and control was with IRP, not the
appellant.
• The appellant, having been divested of management and control under Section 17 IBC,
lacked the capacity to comply with the demand notice or make payment.
• Distinguished P. Mohan Raj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., noting that in that case, the
cause of action arose before moratorium, unlike the present matter.
• Held that in these peculiar facts, prosecution of the director cannot continue, as the legal
requirements for prosecution under Section 138 were not satisfied.
Final Directions
1. The impugned order dated 21.12.2021 of the High Court is set aside.
2. The summoning order dated 07.09.2018 is quashed.
3. Complaint Case No. 15580/2018 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, is
quashed against the appellant.
4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Key Takeaways
• Criminal liability under Section 138 NI Act against a director is extinguished if the cause of
action arises after the imposition of IBC moratorium and the director has lost management
control.
• Distinction clarified between situations where cause of action arises before and after
moratorium for proceedings under Section 138 NI Act.
• Practical implication: Directors cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 NI Act if, by reason
of IBC proceedings, they are disabled from repayment at the relevant time.
________________________________________________________________________________
Confidentiality Disclaimer
This document is confidential and intended solely for educational and informational purposes. It is
prepared for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged
or legally protected information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify MD LEGAL LLP
immediately and delete this document. Unauthorized use, disclosure, or copying of this document
is prohibited. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, this document is subject to
rectification in case any error or omission is brought to our notice.
 REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 346 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.1104 OF 2022

VISHNOO MITTAL …APPELLANT

VERSUS

M/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant before this court has challenged the order dated

21.12.2021 of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana

High Court by which the appellant’s petition under section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking quashing of

proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’) against the appellant, has been dismissed.

3. Admittedly, the appellant was the director of M/s Xalta Food and

Beverages Private Limited (hereinafter ‘corporate debtor’). There

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi

was a contract between the corporate debtor and the Respondent-

Date: 2025.03.17
18:18:15 IST
Reason:

M/s Shakti Trading Company where the respondent was to

1
 function as a super stockist of the corporate debtor. As a

consequence of the business relationship between the two

companies, the appellant, in his capacity as director of the

corporate debtor, had drawn eleven cheques in favour of the

respondent of varying amounts, the total amount being

Rs.11,17,326/- (approximately). These cheques were dishonoured

on 07.07.2018. A legal notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was

issued to the appellant by the respondent as the cheque amounts

were not furnished to the respondent by the bank. Consequently,

in September 2018, a complaint was filed before the appropriate

Court by the respondent against the appellant for offences under

Section 138 of NI Act. Meanwhile, on 25.07.2018, insolvency

proceedings against the corporate debtor, of which the appellant

was the director, commenced and a moratorium under Section 14

of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter ‘IBC’) was

imposed. On the same day i.e. 25.07.2018, the interim resolution

professional (hereinafter ‘IRP’) was appointed in regard to the

corporate debtor.

4. Meanwhile, vide order dated 07.09.2018, the Court had issued

summons to the appellant in the proceedings initiated by the

respondent against the appellant under section 138 of the NI Act.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court under section

2
 482 of CrPC challenging the summoning order and further, prayed

for the quashing of the section 138 NI Act case against him in view

of the moratorium issued under Section 14 of the IBC. By the

impugned order dated 21.12.2021, the High Court, all the same,

dismissed the appellant’s petition and declined to quash the

complaint against him. Now, the appellant is before us.

5. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6. The case of the appellant is that the corporate debtor is presently

facing insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law

Tribunal (NCLT) and a moratorium order was issued on

25.07.2018 under Section 14 of the IBC. The relevant portion of

Section 14 of the IBC reads as under:

“14. Moratorium.
(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3),
on the insolvency commencement date, the
Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare
moratorium for prohibiting all of the following,
namely:--
(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending
suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor
including execution of any judgment, decree or
order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel
or other authority;
(b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or
disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its
assets or any legal right or beneficial interest
therein;
(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any
security interest created by the corporate debtor in

3
 respect of its property including any action under
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (54 of 2002);
(d) the recovery of any property by an owner or
lessor where such property is occupied by or in the
possession of the corporate debtor…”

7. Relying upon the above provision, the appellant submits that since

the moratorium order was imposed on 25.07.2018 and was in

operation, therefore, the proceedings under section 138 of the NI

Act could not have been initiated against the appellant. He would

further argue that although the cheques were drawn and

dishonoured prior to the above date i.e., 25.07.2018, however, the

notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was given on 06.08.2018

i.e., post 25.07.2018. Hence, the cause of action for the offence

under Section 138 of the NI Act would commence after a period of

15 days calculated from 06.08.2018 and it would be 21.08.2018,

but by this time moratorium had already been imposed on

25.07.2018. The submission of the appellant was, however, not

accepted by the High Court. The High Court, while dismissing the

appellant’s petition, relied upon the judgment of this Court in P.

Mohan Raj v. M/S Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC

258 where it was held that the immunity granted by the

moratorium order issued under Section 14 of the IBC can only be

4
 obtained by a Corporate Debtor and not by a natural person such

as the present appellant, who was the Director of the Corporate

Debtor. In para 102 of the said judgement, this Court had noted:

“… for the period of moratorium, since no Sections

138/141 proceeding can continue or be initiated
against the corporate debtor because of a statutory
bar, such proceedings can be initiated or continued
against the persons mentioned in Sections 141(1)
and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This
being the case, it is clear that the moratorium
provision contained in Section 14 IBC would apply
only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons
mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be
statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.”

However, in our opinion, the High Court erred in relying on

P.Mohan Raj since the facts of that case were completely different

and the present case is thus distinguishable from it.

8. In P.Mohan Raj, certain cheques drawn by the appellants therein

were dishonoured on 03.03.2017 and 28.04.2017. Thereafter,

demand notices dated 31.03.2017 and 05.05.2017 were issued by

the complainant. The moratorium was imposed on 06.06.2017,

which is clearly after the lapse of 15 days from the date of demand

notices. In other words, in that case, the cause of action under

section 138 NI Act arose before the imposition of the moratorium

and on these facts, this Court had held that section 14 of IBC bars

or stays proceedings only against the corporate debtor and

5
 proceedings can be continued or initiated against the natural

persons. The case at hand is totally different from P.Mohan Raj as

the cause of action in the present case arose after the

commencement of the insolvency process.

9. The return of the cheques dishonoured simpliciter does not create

an offence under section 138 NI Act, which reads as under:

“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency,

etc., of funds in the account.—Where any
cheque drawn by a person on an account
maintained by him with a banker for payment of
any amount of money to another person from out of
that account for the discharge, in whole or in part,
of any debt or other liability, is returned by the
bank unpaid, either because of the amount of
money standing to the credit of that account is
insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds
the amount arranged to be paid from that account
by an agreement made with that bank, such person
shall be deemed to have committed an offence and
shall, without prejudice to any other provision of
this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may be extended to two years, or with fine
which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall
apply unless—
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of six months from the date on
which it is drawn or within the period of its validity,
whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for
the payment of the said amount of money by giving
a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque,
within thirty days of the receipt of information by

6
 him from the bank regarding the return of the
cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the
payment of the said amount of money to the payee
or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course
of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of
the said notice.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,
“debt of other liability” means a legally enforceable
debt or other liability.”

Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of NI Act makes it clear

that cause of action arises only when demand notice is served and

payment is not made pursuant to such demand notice within the

stipulated fifteen-day period. This Court in Jugesh Sehgal v.

Shamsher Singh Gogi (2009) 14 SCC 683 has explained the

ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act offence as follows:

“13. It is manifest that to constitute an offence

under Section 138 of the Act, the following
ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an
account maintained by him in a bank for payment
of a certain amount of money to another
person from out of that account;
(ii) the cheque should have been issued for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability;
(iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of six months from the date on
which it is drawn or within the period of its validity
whichever is earlier;
(iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid,
either because of the amount of money standing to
the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the
7
 cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to
be paid from that account by an agreement made
with the bank;
(v) the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque makes a demand for the payment of the
said amount of money by giving a notice in writing,
to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the
receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make
payment of the said amount of money to the payee
or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15
days of the receipt of the said notice.
Being cumulative, it is only when all the
aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the
person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed
to have committed an offence under Section 138 of
the Act.”

In other words, the cause of action arises only when the amount

remains unpaid even after the expiry of fifteen days from the date

of receipt of the demand notice.

10. There is another aspect to this matter. In the present case, on

25.07.2018, the moratorium was imposed and management of the

corporate debtor was taken over by the interim resolution

professional as per section 17 of the IBC. Here, we would also like

to reproduce extracts from section 17 of the IBC which are as

follows:

“17. Management of affairs of corporate

debtor by interim resolution professional.- (1)
From the date of appointment of the interim
resolution professional,—

8
 (a) the management of the affairs of the corporate
debtor shall vest in the interim resolution
professional;
(b) the powers of the board of directors or the
partners of the corporate debtor, as the case may
be, shall stand suspended and be exercised by the
interim resolution professional;
(c) ……………
(d) the financial institutions maintaining accounts
of the corporate debtor shall act on the instructions
of the interim resolution professional in relation to
such accounts and furnish all information relating
to the corporate debtor available with them to the
interim resolution professional…”

11. The bare reading of the above provision shows that the appellant

did not have the capacity to fulfil the demand raised by the

respondent by way of the notice issued under clause (c) of the

proviso to Section 138 NI Act. When the notice was issued to the

appellant, he was not in charge of the corporate debtor as he was

suspended from his position as the director of the corporate debtor

as soon as IRP was appointed on 25.07.2018. Therefore, the

powers vested with the board of directors were to be exercised by

the IRP in accordance with the provisions of IBC. All the bank

accounts of the corporate debtor were operating under the

instructions of the IRP, hence, it was not possible for the appellant

to repay the amount in light of section 17 of the IBC. Additionally,

we have been informed on behalf of the appellant that, after the

9
 imposition of the moratorium, the IRP had made a public

announcement inviting the claims from the creditors of the

Corporate Debtor and the respondent has filed a claim with the

IRP.

12. Keeping in mind the above observations and distinguishing facts

and circumstances of this case from that of P. Mohan Raj, we are

of the considered view that the High Court ought to have quashed

the case against the appellant by exercising its power under

section 482 of the CrPC.

13. Therefore, we allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned

order dated 21.12.2021 and quash the summoning order dated

07.09.2018. Further, we hereby quash the complaint case

no.15580/2018, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Court, Chandigarh, filed by the respondent against the appellant.

14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

……...……….………………….J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

..….....………………………….J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

New Delhi.
March 17, 2025.

10