Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21508
Decided on: 16.04.2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Saahiil Dewani, Adv., Mr. Shakul R. Ghatole, Adv., Mr. Shyam Dewani, Adv., Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR, Mr. Sachet Makhija, Adv., Mr. Dashang Doshi, Adv.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 226 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 33, 34 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Liquidation of company -- Dishonour of cheque – Liability of Directors – Initiation of liquidation proceedings against the company does not extinguish liability under Section 138 – Discharge of directors set aside.
(Para 3-6)
ORDER
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/accused took a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- from respondent No.1/complainant, and allegedly repaid the amount through a post-dated cheque dated 12.12.2018. The cheque was signed by petitioner No.1 in his capacity as a director and authorized signatory of respondent No.2 company (of which petitioner No.2 herein is also a director). This cheque was dishonoured on 14.12.2018. On 18.02.2019, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’). This was registered as S.C.C. No. 7281/2019.
2. On 08.04.2019, an order of liquidation was passed against the respondent No.2 company (accused No.1). The petitioners subsequently filed an application for discharge, which was allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 31.01.2025. The Trial Court observed that since the petitioners had lost their positions as directors of the respondent No.2 company post liquidation, they could not be liable.
3. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed Criminal W.P.No.251/2025 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. By the impugned order dated 01.10.2025, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition observing that liability under S.138 of the NI Act would subsist despite the initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The order discharging the petitioners was quashed and set aside. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Leave Petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents at length.
5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. Special Leave Petition is hence, dismissed.
7. It is needless to observe that all other contentions on both sides are left open to be advanced before the trial court.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Petition dismissed.
********